Being champion means that you have to prestige over anybody else in the locker room. Unless you're a future Hall of Famer or present Hall of Famer, that means you should win most your matches.
If you look at the past champions Curtis Axle, Cody Rhodes, Antonio Cesaro, Miz, Kofi Kingston and so many more. They have been secondary champions and they have lost prestige being the champions due to losing or jobbing to lesser competition.
If you win the championship it seems like you lose more matches do you do when you're not the champion? That’s bit backwards, shouldn’t the champion win their matches instead of losing their matches?
Just because Cena and Orton are in the title picture, what makes a difference between those guys losing a match compare to a guy like Big E Langston who is your current Intercontinental Champion.
Granted they are the face of the company. Your secondary Champion should be the guy that is that next guy to be the face of the company.
Let's go back to the 1990s; 1980's and 2000's where the secondary championships actually meant something. Guys like Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, the Rock, Edge, Randy Orton and many others who have paved the way to get to the top of the WWE.
The Intercontinental used to be the work horse title not the jobbing title. You won that title then that means you were the next top guy. Even back in the 80's if you were the IC champion then you were what fans most remembered most when they were leaving the show.
Yes they would remember Hulk Hogan, but would enjoy the undercard guys more. That is what being intercontinental champion is all about in my opinion.
For some reason WWE thinks it's alright champions lose on a week two week bases. I strongly disagree with that logic. Your secondary champions are your future champions and they need to be treated like it. You have champions, mid-card guys and jobbers. There is a reason that there is a pecking order in wrestling.
In ending, WWE give respect to your secondary champions.