Weighing The Costs Of Building A Customer Data Platform In-House

Forbes

01-07-2025

Rafa Flores, Chief Product Officer @Treasure Data, is redefining market-agnostic saas with breakthrough solutions at the edge of Data & AI.
Many organizations weigh the option of building a customer data platform (CDP) in-house to retain control and save on licensing fees.
This 'do it yourself" (DIY) CDP approach can bring several challenges. Let's examine these challenges, backed by industry research, and then outline when building your own model may be a sensible approach and what integrating a purpose-built CDP looks like.
Compute Costs And Budgets
Building an in-house CDP requires more than spinning up a data warehouse; it demands continuous scaling, real-time event processing and analytics workloads that spike compute consumption.
Gartner research estimates that annual licensing for a packaged CDP runs between $100,000 and $300,000. In contrast, the research explains, the internal labor and cloud-compute costs for a DIY system can far exceed that range when you factor in elasticity needs and maintenance overhead.
Contrast this with Forrester's Total Economic Impact study of a leading CDP public cloud deployment, which showed that organizations achieved a 99.5% reduction in costs to scale data analytics and a 97.6% faster time to value compared to prior inelastic setups. DIY implementations cannot match this efficiency or predictability.
Multiplying Vendor Contracts And Integration Headaches
A DIY CDP involves cobbling together multiple point solutions: a data lake or warehouse, an identity resolution engine, a messaging queue, real-time streaming tools and bespoke API layers. Each component brings its own contract, service-level agreements, upgrade cycles and support model.
Not only does this inflate legal and procurement workloads, but it also creates version skew issues:
• Contract Sprawl: Managing five or six separate vendor agreements versus a single CDP license.
• Pipeline Proliferation: Each new data source or channel requires custom ETL, doubling or tripling the number of pipelines.
• 'Stitching' Gaps: Without a unified identity layer, cross-system joins rely on brittle, one-off matching logic that breaks when schemas or data volumes shift.
This operational complexity can burden IT teams while marketing waits for bespoke integrations to be re-engineered at each change request.
Fragmented Audience Building and Limited Vendor Support
Effective audience creation depends on unified customer profiles, deterministic identity resolution and real-time segment activation. DIY CDPs typically lack:
1. Robust Audience Builders: Drag-and-drop segment editors with out-of-the-box activations.
2. Governed Workflows: Version control, audit trails and data governance guardrails.
3. Vendor Parity: Some ecosystem partners invest heavily in packaged CDP integrations; others treat DIY setups as 'unsupported' custom projects.
This can leave marketing teams navigating a 'jungle of friends and foes' among their own technology providers while paying the vendors for uneven support.
When DIY CDP May Work
While there are challenges with the DIY model, it can be viable under some conditions:
• Exceptional In-House Expertise: A mature engineering organization with deep experience in real-time data processing, identity resolution and API-driven architectures.
• High Marketing R&D Budget: Firms allocating over 15% of revenue to marketing innovation may recoup build costs by embedding proprietary differentiation, per Gartner's guidance on budget profiles in the research cited above.
• Single, Stable Use Case: A narrowly scoped CDP need (e.g., internal reporting only) with minimal system changes, limited channels and clear, unchanging identity requirements.
Outside of these specialized scenarios, the DIY approach often faces challenges in matching the agility, governance and total cost efficiency typically associated with packaged CDP solutions.
Conclusion
Industry research underscores the transformative ROI of purpose-built CDPs, thus dramatically cutting scale costs and accelerating time-to-value. But there are also challenges inherent in purpose-built CDPs.
For instance, the 'double compute' phenomenon: Processing workloads can occur both in your data warehouse and within the layered CDP, yet vendors sometimes highlight only incremental fees, masking total resource consumption and risking budget overruns.
As best-of-breed CDPs evolve, they should move away from compute-based pricing toward outcome-driven models that charge based on profile counts or behavioral events. This should include flexible consumption tiers aligned to genuine use cases rather than CPU hours. This approach links cost more directly to delivered value and reduces unpredictability.
A second concern is vendor lock-in: Purpose-built solutions may entrench data and workflows in proprietary environments, making future migrations complex and expensive. Despite the trade-offs mentioned above, a DIY approach can alleviate some lock-in anxiety by retaining architectural control.
A transparent discussion with IT and data teams should weigh both factors: purpose-built CDPs offer convenience but must address pricing optics and portability, whereas DIY demands resources and skill but may offer IT ownership over long-term strategy.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?