So you guys beef is that WWE is packaging him as a face? No matter what heelish things he does, no matter what you see, the WWE's packages determine what he is?
Okay..
If he is truly a heel, then his role within the week to week narrative should reflect that. He should come out and talk shit about the crowd, beat up faces, have commentary about how disgusting his actions are, get embarrassed and ultimately defeated by the good guys.
That doesn't happen with Reigns. He's called a heel by PR, but everything about how he's presented most of the time on the actual show suggests he's still a face.
Wrestling is, by and large, pretty simple. Good guys vs bad guys. I can appreciate the idea behind the whole "meta heel" thing they're apparently going for. It's a legitimately innovative idea, trying to emulate the "decide for yourself" feel of other sports.
The problem is so much of the audience is saying they don't want that. They want simple, good vs bad narratives. At least, they want that in this instance, anyway. They want Reigns to be a traditional heel because they think he'd be more entertaining that way.
WWE is trying to play the middle when it's really not necessary. It's not even like they don't have other potentially money making baby faces, so they need to cling to Reigns as a face cause otherwise, sales would tank. They still got Rollins, Ambrose, The New Day, Finn Balor, Styles, etc. Even Cena tells us every week he isn't gone yet.
Again, if this is truly the direction WWE wants, alright. Personally, I don't care too much about Reigns either way beyond finding debates about him fun. Both Raw and Smackdown have plenty of other cats and dolls for me to get invested in. But, if I go beyond myself and look at the whole picture, I do question the worth of the "any reaction is fine" logic. It can't be good in the long run, when your audience is dwindling, to have this much of your fanbase against the guy you're pushing as the main character of the show.