Admittedly, I don't have an MBA or anything and I don't own a business, but the booking of Roman Reigns puzzles me.
We can agree that the WWE is a bottom line-driven business. If we work with this understanding, then it's logical to presume that every decision is based on making the company as profitable as possible.
Roman Reigns has been identified as a guy the company would like to turn into a top star. Because of this, he was selected to win the Royal Rumble. The opportunity to headline WrestleMania should be something to further cement a wrestler's standing as a credible star.
The problem is, Reigns hasn't been taken to as quickly as the company intends. Whether it's that he's too green or that he can't talk or that he's overpushed, the fans have rejected Reigns.
Now, you can say that the fans have crapped on guys in the past, like Reigns's cousin, the Rock, for example, but this didn't happen when the guy in question was being positioned as the centrepiece of the company.
So all the signs were in place foretelling that Reigns would be rejected and there were a number of alternative solutions available (Bryan, Ziggler and Ambrose)that were more palatable to the consumer, yet the company chose to go ahead with the option that will seemingly hurt Reigns's long-term earning potential.
Let's forget about Reigns from a narrative perspective and look at strictly from a business one: How is this not a decision that is completely counter-intuitive to improving business?