In this tough economy, many municipalities are looking for new ways to make ends meet, and, wouldn’t you know it, advertisers are answering the call. Many cities are turning to corporate America to help fund public services in exchange for naming rights.

While selling naming rights is nothing new for sports arenas, entertainment venues and even museums, it’s a rarely an out-in-the-open phenomenon for public services, despite years of private-public partnerships. But attaching corporate identities to public services appears to be gaining traction.

In Tampa, there’s the Teco street car line, which is sponsored by Tampa Bay Electric. New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority recently approved an agreement to rename a Brooklyn subway station to coincide with the development of a new NBA arena. Naming rights to the Barclays Center stop costs the company $200,000 a year.

Looks like a win-win for both cash-strapped cities and companies looking for new ways to connect to consumers. But the question is: how far does this go? A swig of water from an Ozarka water fountain in the city park? Sitting in traffic on The Goodyear 101? Taking snapshots of the FreeCreditReport.com Statue of Liberty?

Marketers need to evaluate the impact on brand equity before dishing out the dollars for naming rights.

Bus displays are one thing, but if I were a phone or a cable company I’d think twice before branding an entire transit line with my logo. As a consumer, I’ve spent more than my fair share of time on hold waiting for customer service. Waiting for a bus or train brought to me by the same friendly folks who bring me the internet would aggravate me to no end.

On the flip side, if the cable provider could provide broadband in the bus or an accurate, real-time map of when the next coach would arrive, it could give me a positive impression of the brand.

What’s more likely to be the case is that corporations will provide little more than a lump sum subsidy to the municipality in exchange for the naming rights. Rather than enhance the quality of public services offered to citizens, the corporation’s funds are a band-aid effort to keep public services afloat, which means that citizens aren’t going to realize what the brand involved has provided. All they’ll see is a logo.

And that’s the moral to this story in this brave new world of branding: if the public feels short-changed by these naming rights partnerships, it’s a failure to both the municipality and the brand involved. Citizens shouldn’t feel like their government sold them out for nothing in return. Brands need to offer more than just their calling card.