I  found this article about the winners and losers of advertising in the Olympics:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/pg-wins-olympics-marketing-gold-mcdonalds-fails-to-step-up/story-fnki1jcy-1226833494348

I only got to watch the Olympics when I was home over February break, but I did see the McDonalds' advertisement the article talks about and the controversy over the Under Armour suits for speed skating. I specifically remember my reaction to the McDonalds' ad because it compares biting the gold medal with biting into a chicken nugget. Instead of what they hoped to relay to the consumer, I kind of shuddered at the thought of biting into a piece of medal like a piece of chicken because it would hurt. Additionally, the athletes McDonalds showcased did not perform well at the Olympics, hurting the effectiveness of the ad even more.

As for the Under Armour suits used in speed skating, all of the Americans performed very badly while wearing them. It is unknown if the poor performances are due to the athletes' performances or the actual suits, but the correlation might be confused as causation for the viewer. Overall, I do not think this will affect Under Armour in the United States, but it might hurt Under Armour's attempts to expand internationally.

Under Armour spent years testing the suits, so there is no way they could have predicted the poor performance of the athletes. As for McDonalds, they should have analyzed the commercial's effects better before showing the advertisement. Commercials and products at the Olympics have such a large audience that a lot of thought and preparation should be put into the image they produce for the company.