KO Bossy, bringing logic to this thread as usual. It's really very simple to understand. No matter how well someone who's a draw does for a segment in the breakdown (and I'm not saying Punk is/isn't a draw, just to make that point as it's irrelevant whether he draws or not), as long as WWE puts out shit like what KO Bossy described, people will tune out in droves and the average for Raw will decrease severely. Now if it was Cena/Taker/HHH out there in those times besides Punk, would that segment do a lot better? Would the overall number be that much better? Let's just use this as an example:
Let's pretend for a second that is a Raw breakdown (realistic or unrealistic is irrelevant). The average viewership number for that is 3,423,000 (rounded). Now let's say HHH was there, and was in Q5 and the OR. Let's say Q5 and the overrun did 500,000 more than it did in that breakdown (which is more than it'd probably be anyway, but let's just keep it rolling). The average rating, despite those vastly increased numbers only goes up to 3,500,000. Let's even say HHH did a million better in each segment than Punk would. The average would be about 3,576,000, only 150,000 more than Punk. Now granted this isn't factoring in advertising for HHH, which would cause more people to tune in initially, but that is a whole other thing. This is assuming that they appear on the fly for a 15 minute segment, which is what's the case with Punk most of the time anyway. But even if they did advertise HHH for the show, it would just cause more people to watch his segment, but not necessarily the rest of the show, which is still the problem.
Hopefully that clears it up for some people. Even if Punk is 2-3 of the major key points, it's not like anyone else, even those who are draws, would be able to impact the show's overall rating that much if they were in his place. What makes this especially true is WWE is predictable, even I'm sure the casuals notice bigger things happen at the start of the show, at the turn of the hours and at the end of the show, so they'd know to only tune in at those points anyway.
KO Bossy's point (at least from what I got) wasn't that Punk is some super draw, just that he's not responsible for the show's decline solely. It's the filler crap that people will tune out during, not Punk (most of the time).
But thats not how it works. Your analysis is flawed. You cannot randomly add up 500k to a quarter and claim this is what would have happened. Thats stupid(no offense).
Lets say either Cena/Taker/HHH/Rock/Brock is advertised for the RAW for the main event angle, then the shows opens with strong viewership, the usual drop occurs in the segments following that, picks back up by 9pm, drops, picks up by 10 and then the final gain at the overrun. The viewership average and the Rating will majorly depend on the overall the show started with. The gains at the key quarters are gonna happen regardless because people are conditioned to these key quarters. This is the reason the champion is usually blamed for low ratings/viewership. Do you see people making excuses for Shawn Michaels 1996? or Kevin Nash 1995 rating? like you're doing here "oh hey look at this quarter michaels gained, look nash gained at 10 pm, what a mega-draw!".
The focus of the entire show on Punk, he is the champion and the main angle and the show does lowest viewership in 15 years two weeks in a row.
Like I said earlier, you can blame the booking all you want, come up all sorts of excuses it doesnt change the fact people dont wanna see him as a top guy. He is being forced on them and now you see the result. Vince needs to the take the title off him ASAP. Maybe if Ryback takes the title after squashing him, maybe then the viewership/rating will go back up to normal levels.