No such thing as bad publicity?

I read with interest the statistics on the positive reactions to Olympic sponsorship from major companies.
Cadbury apparently won the ratings with a 16% positive score, with P&G behind in 2nd place on 10%. Coke crossed the line like a GB BMX rider, in last place with 1%.
Before I move on, I just have to reverse the statistics, as I was always taught to do...

• A massive 99% of people reacted neutrally or negatively to Coke's sponsorship
• 90% reacted neutral/positive to P&G
• The PR "winners" managed about 5 in 6 people reacting neutrally or negatively...that's a bit like saying that you have a daily habit to do something that you actually manage once a week

These are big majorities. But then people often react neutrally or negatively to sponsorship, advertising etc. Or at least they say they do. For what no company should forget is that what people SAY their reaction is, may differ significantly from how they ACT after the sponsorship or advertising.

More interesting might be to see what percentage of people ate a Cadbury product or drank a Coke while visiting the Olympic Park. Clearly these statistics will be positively biased due to limited availability of other options that was part of the sponsorship deal, but they would still show more about action than emotion.

So it is often said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Coke will likely be a little worried at their score above as it really does seem to be extremely low. 

However, I suspect they will have sold a lot of fizzy stuff over the last 2 weeks, and will continue to do so in the future. People's actions are what matters. Coke will examine the statistics of how much they sold pre- and post-Olympics to assess their sponsorship investment. 

They will not worry about what people say, only what they do.