Who's better to lead a company: Heel or Face?

[Blade]

I've seen alot of threads about Orton/Wrestlemania/Royal Rumble etc. where people have been saying things like "WOW! there's gonna be a HEEL as the face of a company"

Have we become so accustomed to Cena that a heel as the man of the company seems a bit crazy? Maybe the people who think seeing Orton as top guy while heel are just fans who've only been watching Wrestling recently...

But heels have been the main people in companies just as much, if not more than faces.
Triple H, Austin, Hogan in WCW, Angle in TNA... All the biggest stars in their respective companies at some point or another while a heel.

So I ask the question, who's it better to have as a top guy in the company, a heel or a face?

In a face you've got a role model, a hero. Someone kids will love... After all, kid consumers matter most in the wrestling industry... apparently..
Notable faces who've led companies: Hogan, Bret Hart, Cena

On the other side of the coin, we've got heels. The bad guys that everyone loves to hate, or just simply hate. This can work in 2 ways for money-making. You can have the heel anti-hero who people love to watch cause he's so daring etc. like Austin and now Orton. But there's also the heel asshole, who people wanna see get their ass kicked and their title taken away from them like Triple H circa 2003.

The arguement for picking faces are obvious but while it's easier to pick faces, some interesting arguements can be made for the heels. In 2001, WWE had one of it's most profitable years. Some of that is due to the Invasion angle, but it's also a year when the 2 biggest heels were pretty much dominating the company; Austin and (until he got injured) Triple H.
And Austin was the most heel-y heel in recent history that year. He did the 2 most unforgivable acts of heel-ness within months of each other. He joined forces with Vince Mcmahon and THEN he joined the evil alliance.
And another arguement is that since Cena the mega-face has been the top guy, WWE has been in decline. The economy can also be blamed too, but it is somewhat of a coincidence...

Anyway, I'll stop writing and leave it up to you guys.

 

[NSL]

I think a face is better to lead the company, but it doesn't mean they need to be the champion.

For instance, Jeff Hardy is the most over guy on Smackdown, and has only had one short reign as champion. He's great to lead the show, because the crowd loves him, and he works a great match for TV. His merchandise must be one of the top sellers for the company. He isn't "the man" on his show, but he is definitely a reason most people tune in every Friday.

John Cena is the lead guy on RAW, whether he's champion or not. Having John Cena in the title picture is working for the WWE. He sells a ton of merchandise, and puts on a great show in the ring.

Orton and Edge are great wrestlers, and are always in the title picture, but I don't see them as being the lead guys for their respective shows. Fans love too boo them, which only gets the faces over more, and people will eventually stop watching if someone they don't like is still the lead dog on their brand.

 

[thewrestlinghero]

i agree i would go with a face a face is like a super hero to some younger viewers a face will make the company alot of money while heel will just be booded and make some money and just be a top rivial to the face

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

With WWE going PG and starting to target young viewers no question a face is better for business. Because naturally younger viewers want the "good guys" to prevail, its the formula WWE used in the 80s with Hogan, Warrior and Savage and it paid off. When you're 10 years old you dont want to see your hero beat and the bad guy winning. Now around the Attitude era I dont think it makes a difference either way because to your average 18-30 viewer having the face prevail isnt as big of deal. For further proof of that is when WCW was doing their best business during the NWO days Hogan was the champ most of the time and he was obviously a heel and I think their target audience was teens to young adults.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

The heel is better to lead a company. If you are a smart business man, you would want fans to rally behind a wrestler. What beter way to do that then with a bad guy on the top. All the while having the face chasing after him. When you watch Batman, you watch it to see The Batman catch the Joker, Riddler or whomever. The same goes for wrestling. You need that top bad guy to garner peoples hatred, then have them rally behind a certain superstar to see said heel get taken down.

 

[Starchild]

I think it's definitely easier for it to be a face. If for nothing else but to sell more merchandise particularly to the kids. Not to mention everything that comes along with being the man. All the endorsements, red carpet appearances, interviews with other stations/shows, guest appearances on SNL or sitcoms, etc. I mean it works for a heel because the guy playing the character is probably a nice guy..but it just seems better when it's a face doing it.
That being said, I think Orton will go over Triple H at Mania and finally take his place as THE heel in the business akin to what Trips was for so many years. He will likely never have quite the star power that Cena will, just like Triple H didn't have as much as Rock or Austin. But he can still be a guy that everyone knows and respects, and one that WWE can market more than most anyone other than the top guy himself.