Does association with Tiger really hurt brands after scandal?

Felix Salmon just pointed out a bogus study from UC Davis researchers that ascribes a loss of upto $14billion to the shareholders of the companies whose brands Tiger endorsed. But this set me thinking as to whether there is a way tell in today's day and age if the publicity ("Hey, there's no such thing as bad publicity in the PR world!") that Accenture and Gatorade got due to Tiger's scandal will be net negative or even positive from the higher brand recall that many readers will experience! I would love to read a study if someone has found a way to determine this!

On publicradio.org,  Stacey Vanek-Smith for Marketplace got at least the following quote on the scandal

MARISSA GLUCK: I think for Nike, being mentioned on Craig Ferguson, being part of the popular culture keeps them top of mind and it, in a way, makes them maybe a little hipper because they're part of the joke.

The best part in all this for a moneyverse observer like myself is that predictably the insurance companies are now touting reputation risk insurance! One insurance product offered by DeWitt Stern will supposedly pay for lost sales, crisis-management fees, lost advertising campaign expenses and pre-committed and incurred endorsement fees. We can be sure that at least this firm will profit from the scandal!