I never claimed Punk is fully responsible for the bad ratings, though. Shitty booking is certainly not to be forgotten. And blaming one person for bad ratings is just foolish. The whole show doesn't revolve around one person only, so no one in specific is entirely responsible for bad ratings, although they can be bad enough to continuously make viewers change the channel. (*cough* Alberto Del Rio squashing Santino every other week *cough*)
Exactly. One person isn't to blame. However, when I came into this thread on Tuesday, sure enough, the first thing I saw was a few posts saying "2.84? Punk continues to fail." I just wish they'd understand this simple concept-everyone has a part in a good or bad rating.
End of the day Bossy, Punk hasn't been able to draw significantly without the help of a bigger name. He isn't alone in that either because it's the same for everybody else on the roster who isn't one of said bigger names. Rather than give him a fully fledged run at the top, WWE have opted to give him a half hearted and very long run just under that mark in the hopes that through sheer longevity, the masses will be conditioned to think he's a huge deal instead of actually presenting him as such. When paired with the right guys (Cena/Vince/HHH/Rock) his segments have pulled in huge numbers. When paired with anybody else he has failed to impress and at times has even floundered in timeslots that usually do a lot better and even lost viewers which is never a good sign. But like I said before, he isn't the first and he'll most likely continue to fluctuate in the ratings department depending on who he works with until WWE decides to fully solidify him into that upper echelon. The numbers back that up and to me, the real issue or the issue that deserves most attention when it comes to ratings are the double standards at play because that is where all the arguments come from.
I'll use the aforementioned Punk/Orton example that I did before. This week Punk's segment bombed and what happens? His haters storm in and proclaim him public enemy number one, a ratings killer etc etc while his marks absolve him of all blame. Switch Punk with Orton and what happens? His haters storm in and proclaim him public enemy number one, a ratings killer etc etc while his marks absolve him of all blame. Because of these reasons, it's pointless to even try to debate ratings with some people because they can't be objective about it. Like I said before, the same Punk marks getting upset over everybody putting blame on him for this week would be first in line to place blame on somebody else if it happens next week. The double standards are the problem, not the numbers themselves because any objective person can look at them and come to logical conclusions, especially when you throw a little context in there too.
I totally agree, debating ratings with people who are just too stubborn and blatantly turning a blind eye to evidence in support of the contrary is a total waste of time.
Double standards...gotta love em, huh?
I agree with your point Starbuck about double standards. At the end of the day though, everyone plays double standards with their favorites, though the best posters can usually rise above that to some degree.
In any event, the talk of Punk drawing is on both sides. I think what ended up happening was this:
1) For years, Punk marks praised Punk, call him the best in the company, etc. and haters, while not agreeing kept quiet because Punk wasn't a major star.
2) Punk becomes a major star and haters seem to take offense, along with all The Rock marks who took personal offense to comment against Punk calling him Dwayne.
3) They see his segments only gain half the time and thus will bash him anytime his segment under-performs and try to credit anyone and everyone else in a segment with Punk if it gains (which might be the case in some circumstances, but not others).
4) Marks will do the complete opposite (though not as bad as the haters), where they'll make excuses for why he doesn't do well (and some valid), but then give him all or most of the credit when ratings do well.
And that cycle has continued over and over and over for a year. If one side lets go it makes them look like the "loser" where the "winner" will keep posting the same shit over and over again. It's a never-ending mark vs. hater war. Punk and Orton, as Starbuck pointed out, are probably the two biggest stars that are the center of these wars when they come to drawing. Hell, they're probably the only ones right now. Usually the wars between marks and haters for guys like Sheamus, Del Rio, Barrett, etc. are all regarding talent, not who draws and who doesn't.
Daniel Bryan though, always has the "BRYAN DRAWS!" posters, who probably haven't met much retaliation from haters since he's not the champion or in the spotlight. I can guarantee that will change if Bryan ever gets the title or somehow becomes the center of the show and much like Punk, half his segments draw, half don't.
The overall show rating being down is on WWE for not creating compelling storylines. Lesnar/HHH, while still the biggest drawing points of the show would be even bigger if the storyline was better. Punk/Cena/Show is incredibly bland as well after the first week or two.
I'm at least happy that some of us here are humble enough to say "you know what? I love X superstar and that segment he did was shit." You can acknowledge when they're not doing their best work, instead of just saying "X was involved, that makes it amazing" or "X was involved, it was terrible". AKA blind devotion and blind hate. Its so damn irritating sometimes. The Bryan marks have been getting to me lately, especially.