From a business perspective, probably. A reboot instantly gives you a USP of the TOS characters back in action.
However, Trek IX with minor tweaks could've used any crew at any point in Star Trek's history. The idea that Trek was bogged down in continuity and that new stories could not be told is actual nonsense.
But, rightly or wrongly, there was a perception
out there in the general public that Star Trek was too "complicated" for ordinary people, that you needed to be a hardcore Trekkie with a degree in Klingon linguistics to understand the shows. I used to run into this attitude all the time at family reunions, Fourth of July barbecues, etc.
"I like STAR WARS, but STAR TREK seems too complicated."
Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think
that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.
Plus, once you decide to recast the iconic TOS crew, with newer, younger actors, you kinda need to reboot the continuity just to give yourselves a clean slate--and not be locked into forty years of "canonical" biographies for these characters. "Well, Kirk is going to be killed by Soran, and Scotty's going to get trapped in a transporter buffer, and Spock and Uhura are never going to get married . . . ."
Why force the new Kirk and Spock to slavishly follow the tracks laid down by decades of old movies and TV shows? Better to mix things up and get off to a fresh start.