A sure way of killing high-level tournament golf on television is to promote courses and course set-ups which would appeal to the couple hundred anachronists (?) on this site. There is a reason why The Masters is the most watched tournament by far in the U.S. (followed by the PGA) and the impact of big-name players in the field (e.g. Tiger Woods, Lefty).
As to comparing golf to other sports, raw numbers are not nearly as "interesting" as understanding the impact of the demographics reflected in the advertising. Some 30+ years ago a prominent, tenured social psychologist I did some work for in undergraduate school got a short letter-to-the-editor published in The Wall Street Journal. He posited that advertising should not be primarily measured by the number of eyeballs it reached or the recollection of viewers, but by the effect it had on the target audience, specifically, actually "pulling the product from the shelve" (i.e. completing a purchase). Tim Brock, whether being ignorant (doubtful) or seeking an entry into commerce, hardly stumbled into a universal truth (my thought was "no-shit Sherlock"). Me and my colleagues at just one consumer products company had been following closely the effect of advertising and merchandising on sales for many years; I am sure that companies with small and large A & M budgets routinely attempted to measure the effectiveness of their promotional spending.
Though I am not in the enviable position as some here to be influenced by a number of television advertisements aimed at golfers, I can't help noticing that while important football games are bombarded with multi-million $ salty snacks and beer commercials, private jets, Rolex, and hyper-pricey resorts and real estate don't find space alongside. Not that they don't make mistakes, but TV execs and corporate buyers of advertising know their customers quite well.
As a viewer of golf on TV with many similar "likes" as people on this site- I thoroughly enjoy the fourth most watched Major, "The Open"- I'd rather that the PGA Tour paid appearance money to draw more top players than obsessively focusing on keeping scores near par. Perhaps the well-fed Tour bureaucracy would not have some of the discontent it has from both ends of the money list if it adopted such a practice. But I digress!