Over on WCMB we got into a discussion about Monday's RAW and the excellent Orton/Ambrose match. This naturally led to the discussion of whether Ambrose jobbing cleanly was "best for business." Here's my take on it in relation to people asking, "Why do it?" when I pointed out that Ambrose isn't going to be negatively impacted by that loss. There was even a definitive statement that top guys should only lose on PPV and that RAW matches should by and large be non-finishes, screwy finishes, etc.
Non-finishes, etc. can lead you to the same kind of "Why bother?" mindset as well though. I have no issue with a nice mix of clean finishes, screwy finishes and non-finishes on free TV. Honestly, it's kind of necessary in order to preserve the notion that anything can happen.
Dean Ambrose, to me, looks like a guy like Randy Orton (coincidentally enough) that can lose and it won't make a bit of difference. His character is one reason for that, but the other is the crowd's going to respond either way to the guy. Honestly, we need to treat more of the top guys like that. Winning and losing should always matter, but winning shouldn't be the only way to keep a guy over. That mindset is why people got sick of Triple H and John Cena for example. Sadly, it's probably while we'll be sick of Roman Reigns eventually. Guys have to be able to absorb losses even clean ones and maintain their status. It'll make for a more interesting product.
I will add that this isn't an endorsement of "nonsensical parity booking" as a guy I know likes to refer to it. You have everyone from top to bottom trading wins and losses. Guys do need momentum and there still needs to be a tiered system in place, but within that upper level I think you need guys that can all beat one another and win or lose without it destroying them.