Toiletgate good for corporate sponsorship?

It's a well-known dilemma. A young author makes his debut with a novel. The book reviewer has to plough through a huge pile of books every week, and he chooses this debut novel for his next review. The book is crap, so in his article he burns it to the ground. Should the author be happy to see his book being reviewed or not?

In the literary world the following law applies: better a bad review than no review at all. But is this also the case with Toiletgate? Because of the accusations from the Bulgarians, and all the fuzz that followed, the world championship match got far more media attention than would normally have happenend. Should we be happy with this or not? For Susan Polgar it worked out quite well, as is suggested in yesterday's New York Times article (which can also be read via the International Herald Tribune site):

Susan Polgar, a former women's world champion who lives in Queens and created a foundation to promote chess, said that the off-the-board fights may even have helped. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMost likely, the match wouldn't have gotten as much interest if they had just played the games,?¢‚Ǩ? she said. Ms. Polgar said she depended on corporate and private sponsors to support her foundation, whose budget is about $60,000 to $70,000 this year. During the match, she said, she received new pledges from ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsome major new sponsors.?¢‚Ǩ? She declined to identify them, citing their privacy.

Perhaps it was a toilet paper manufacturer who gave Mrs. Polgar a call. Otherwise it's hard to imagine a growth of interest in chess with companies because of the world championship in Elista. Or is it?