LOL What? Thats because Punk is the focus of the entire show. He's part of all the key quarters, 8pm/9pm/10pm/overrun and the show does the lowest viewership/rating in 15 years.
That's like, approximately, 45 minutes of the show that features Punk (15 to open, 10ish at 9, 10ish at 10, 10 at 11). Last I checked, with overrun, the show was pushing 190 minutes in total. Mathematically speaking, that's less than 24% of the show that has something to do with Punk. What about the other 76%+ that doesn't deal with him? How can you logically argue that Punk is to blame for things he has absolutely nothing to do with?
Oh no wait, its because he's part of all the key quarters as you claim. Except in past weeks those quarters gained viewers (including last week when he and Foley gained 877,000 viewers, pretty solid for today's age). Its the segments like Bryan and Kane hugging, Santino vs Antonio Cesaro and Zack Ryder vs Heath Slater that lose 500,000 viewers at a time that put the WWE in a hole that they can't climb out of. When you start off with a decent number of people watching (say 4 million), then lose 460,000, then gain 80,000, then lose another 220,000, then gain 110,000, then lose 90,000, you're still at a major deficit. Going by my numbers, your 4 million viewers has dwindled to 3,420,000, meaning however decent some segments did, others did so catastrophically bad that the overall number is still shit. Punk's segments draw, but nowhere near the amount they need to to save the show. Fuck, Rock appearing wouldn't be enough to dig them out of some of these viewership loss holes they get into.
This has not so much to do with Punk being a ratings drain as it does with wrestling just not being a cool thing to watch anymore. If Punk legitimately was so terrible at drawing, then by that theory, whenever he wasn't the center of attention, the show would automatically draw spectacularly. Except...it doesn't. Those last 2 Raws before WM28...3.09 and 3.04 ratings, and that's with Rock was in the ring verbally confronting John Cena. Those are NOT good numbers, especially a 3.04 for your go home show to the alleged biggest Wrestlemania ever. Go home show to ER, featuring this supposed huge match with Lesnar and Cena? 3.06. These are when Punk was firmly in the backseat to whatever Cena was doing, and Cena was paired with monster draws. Yet the show...still didn't do that great, especially considering who was involved.
Here's the Raw ratings average by year for the past few years:
2012: 3.12 (so far)
Notice how the ratings are constantly going down. Notice also how they go down even WITHOUT CM Punk being the focus of the show. Guys like Hunter, Shawn, Cena, Edge, Orton, Batista and the like were the prime players in those times. This year is just the next in a pattern showing that people generally just aren't into the product anymore. People like you might try to pin it on Punk, but regardless of who it was, it would happen. Don't believe me? Well, you seem to buy into the numbers, and numbers don't lie. There's the proof. Raw has been getting less and less viewers on average year after year, even when it had nothing to do with Punk. But NOW its Punk's fault. Ridiculous.
Punk is just the scapegoat, a target to pin the shitty ratings on. Its not about Punk, its about the product. As much fun as the kids (a rather paltry percentage of the audience) have watching it, do you really think 25 year olds look at Brodus Clay dancing in the ring with children, Santino dressing up as Sherlock Holmes, Cena screaming out in anguish "BALONEY FUDGE AND MUSTARD" when he receives bad news or Hornswoggle and Vince doing an impression of Jim Ross, and then say to themselves "damn, I have to see how this turns out!" No, they're most likely going to say "Jesus, this is some stupid, lame kiddy show, I wonder what's on ESPN." In fact, almost nothing on the show appeals to kids above 10, and collectively people above 10 are your biggest market. They're the ones tuning out in droves. And they have been for the past several years. Its not an appealing show for them. The IWC seems to have generated a need to pin the blame on someone. Right now, its Punk's turn, just like Orton gets a lot of flak as well. Most of you don't realize that its not people who are to blame, its WHAT is to blame. And that's the product. John Cena being a goofball is not what ruins this product. Its the writers and bookers who are getting him to go out and play this character. I remember once upon a moon when Cena was a really interesting character. Why? Because he was written and booked that way. Punk is not a ratings drain. The entire product is because its been constantly on a decline in quality over the past few years.
If you want to place blame, do so on the right people:
David Kapoor, head writer for Raw
Stephanie McMahon, executive vice president of creative
Brian Gewirtz, senior vice president of creative writing
You wanna blame someone? Blame these people.