I have long believed that the Internet makes us all journalists.

By that I mean all of us -- as people, as companies, as institutions -- have an account called credibility. You build that account slowly, through words and actions. But withdrawals from that account can be sudden and total. You protect your credibility, it's your reputation, by getting in front of trouble, even over-reacting to it, acknowledging fault quickly, making amends, using it as a learning opportunity.

Never was this more true than in 2005, as Mike at Techdirt reminded me this week.

Let me make Mike's point with a few words.

Sony.
Google.
Apple.
WalMart.

Each leaves 2005 with a quite different credibility value than they entered it with, all based on how they responded when they were attacked. Google and Apple responded aggressively, with an eye toward alleviating problems. Sony and WalMart acted defensively, grudgingly.

The proof is in the market. Apple Computer, which at the beginning of this decade was worth a fraction of what Sony Corp. is worth, is now worth 50% more. (Wal-Mart is still worth more than Google, but the margin is now less than 2-1. At the start of the year it was over 4-1, and Google was considered overvalued at that price.)

It is inevitable that success brings jealousy. It is true that those who disparage you may have impure motives. But how you respond matters, too. If you respond with petulance, you increase the number of enemies you have dramatically, and this damages your credibility, which will eventually impact your growth rate.

In line with that, let's look at what must be the stupidest decision of 2005.

That would be SBC's decision to rename itself AT&T.

As I wrote at the time, the decision was taken with an eye toward a national identity and capturing history, as NationsBank's decision, several years ago, to take the BankofAmerica name when the Charlotte bank bought the San Francisco-based rival in 1998.

SBC, which was originally based in St. Louis after the 1984 Bell break-up, sought to capture the 125-year history of AT&T, and the goodwill inherent in the Bell System, through the name change. But it also bought every enemy AT&T made until its break-up, along with the ill will the company generated as it flailed against the Worldcom fraud and the CRM problems at its cellular unit.

Through its arrogance, born I think of its Texas base, SBC has guaranteed itself a very shaky future. It has yoked its future to short-term government policies that can be changed at a single election, and it has put the ultimate weapon in its opponents' hands, namely a new break-up.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, in other words, but corporations not so much. Protect your credibility in 2006, folks. Remember that the Web is always watching, and it has a long memory. Be good to one another.

Happy New Year.