I worked in consulting for many years doing a lot of CMS projects for Fortune 500s. They always bought their CMS products based on the marketing pitch to marketers. It was mostly bs, but the pitch was always focussed on engagement, testing, analytics, funnels, acquisition. I always came with the perspective that your CMS need not and usually should not be responsible for any of that and you can manage all of that in the application tier via a tag manager product or the like. The current kind of this space is Adobe. They built up their "Marketing Cloud" vis a series of acquisitions and sell it as a fully-baked product that does everything you'd ever need and then attach an 8-figure price tag and hand you off to integrators (like the companies I worked for) to do the (also very costly) implementation. And it's really very hit and miss to get adoption after you've delivered them such an ornery beast to manage 30 pages of brocureware.
We managed to push a few clients towards Contentful which is headless and a lot more dev friendly but they also are pretty sneaky with pricing and get fairly expensive with anything beyond basic usage. I actually begged their sales team to do a better job selling to marketers because their pitch was too tech focussed. I think the sweet spot is to not just say "developers like it" but rather "it will require far fewer developer hours to implement" which will resonate a lot more with budget holders. Also, my firm belief that building a suite of marketing tools by picking and mixing the best products is likely still easier and cheaper than buying any all-in-one tool that isn't great at anything.