In mid-March this year Reuters reported: "the Austrian government's new anti-smoking campaign for youths has hitched up with an unlikely bedfellow -- the country's tobacco giant. Austria Tabak, which has a virtual monopoly on cigarette production and distribution in Austria, is sponsoring the health ministry's three-year campaign to discourage children from taking that first puff."

Strange as this may have seemed to the general public, it was not at all a new scenario.

To the news agency and anyone else familiar with industry-backed 'anti-smoking' campaigns, this sounded like another public relations maneuver. It was bound to be nothing more than just the latest in a series of high profile campaigns designed to maximize credibility for a cigarette producer and minimize any real impact on youth smoking rates.

The most prominent purveyor of such charades is, not surprisingly, Philip Morris. While marketing to children more effectively than any other tobacco transnational, this company has now introduced its tobacco education campaigns in numerous countries, from the U.S. to Hong Kong, from Brazil to the Czech Republic, and most recently in Kazakhstan.

All the PM campaigns have focused on age as the key issue in decisions about smoking. One need not be a psychologist to know how young people are likely to respond to the "wait till you're old enough" message. These campaigns never mention any of the effects of smoking that teenagers are likely to find most disturbing, like yellow teeth, smelly clothes and hair, or reduced athletic and sexual performance. Predictably, all of PM's campaigns have failed completely to persuade the target audience not to smoke.

If the world's largest tobacco transnational were serious about teen smoking prevention, it would model its campaigns after those in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Florida. That last state has allocated $200 million to current smoking prevention efforts, and will pay its advertising agency according to the results the campaign produces. The money comes from an $11.3 billion legal settlement with the tobacco industry.

This independent tobacco-funded campaign gives Florida youths an inside look at how the industry manipulates them in order to addict them to a deadly but profitable product. Young people themselves have been enlisted to help design and run the campaign. The emphasis is not on the proper age at which to begin smoking, but rather on the health effects of smoking and, more importantly, on the adults who lie in order to make money from the poor health of children. Rock concerts, beach parties, smokefree recruiting drives, and tobacco education in schools are also part of the program.

At the same time, Florida has banned outdoor advertising and vending machines in areas accessible to children. That is, the state has not only greatly increased the appeal of smokefree lifestyles, but also reduced the allure and accessibility of cigarettes for young people.

Earlier this month Ms. Carolyn Levy was appointed to PM's new post of Senior Vice President of Youth Smoking Prevention. If her contract is based on Florida's "performance compensation'' model, she may soon become the lowest paid executive in tobacco industry history. But that is about as likely as a PM lawyer working on a contingency basis. Tobacco operatives get paid, and paid handsomely, whether they win or lose--and perhaps even more when, as is the case with the youth campaigns, they are supposed to lose.

But this is not the case with the new Austrian campaign, called Smoke Sucks. It has the potential to be a winner. The logo alone certifies that, despite Austria Tabak funding, the cigarette producer is not orchestrating the campaign. In fact, tobacco executives found the crude campaign logo (see: www.smokesucks.at ) highly offensive. And it certainly is, especially to many adults. But that, according to the campaign's manager Dr. Karl Friedrich, is precisely why Austrian youths find it so appealing. This is no surprise, because a test group of teenagers selected the logo as their favorite from a series of options. And it clearly meets the 'Glantz standard ' for an effective counter-advertisement, i.e. one that is "ambitious,hard-hitting, explicit, and in your face."

In addition to its appropriated tobacco industry funds, impolite style and reliance on teenage experts, Smoke Sucks also mirrors the Florida model in that it involves youth-oriented events-in fact, 230 of them this year alone. Bank Austria has offered to integrate the campaign into its ongoing series of concerts and sporting events for young people. The campaign web site provides a calendar of these events with weekly updates.

The campaign relies on professional advertising services for its promotional materials, Internet exposure and public service announcements. The last take the form of a humorous video clip emphasizing the practical drawbacks of smoking for teenage graffiti artists. It is being shown in cinemas and free of charge on the leading public TV program.

Perhaps more important are the differences between the current campaigns in Florida and Austria. Unfortunately, Austria Tabak has not been challenged in court on the issue of marketing to youth, nor has it agreed to stop doing so. With cool, sexy advertising imagery and the sponsorship of music, culture and sports, the company continues to communicate effectively with young Austrians. And when this target audience is ready to try the products marketed to them, they can buy them from vending machines on streets everywhere.

Considering current knowledge about what makes counter-advertising appealing to youth, the Smoke Sucks message alone would appear to be inadequate. It is not enough to say that something is bad, even if it is said in a novel way with a rude graphic. Youths need and want more 'beef.' They need to be told, in terms that make sense to them and speak to their particular interests, exactly why smoking sucks. They also tend to pay close attention when told why tobacco companies want them to believe that smoking does not suck, and about the techniques the companies use to do this.

These essential elements are not yet a part of the Austrian campaign but Dr. Friedrich says a low-fat version of the 'beef' is coming soon. As was the case in California, he is not allowed to criticize the marketing practices of tobacco producers. Smoke Sucks educational materials, however, will be available in the coming academic year.

Dr. Friedrich's budget is only a small fraction of what his counterparts in Florida get to spend. And his salary is certainly in a much lower orbit than that of PM's exalted Senior Vice President of Youth Smoking Prevention. But so far he seems to be making impressive gains with the resources available. Media coverage of Smoke Sucks is increasing steadily, as are requests for campaign paraphernalia.

When other tobacco control leaders in government organizations have been too effective, the industry has used its influence to have them removed. Brussels provided a good example of this in 1995.

Will this be Dr. Friedrich's reward, too, for a job well done? He hopes to have enough private sponsorship to carry on when the Austria Tabak funding obligation expires after three years. Athletic equipment companies like Puma and inline skate producer Oxygen have already joined Bank Austria in providing complementary support. Smoke Sucks, an independant, non-profit corporation, will not survive without this alternative funding.

Furthermore, by the spring of 2001, the government of Austria may have begun to acknowledge the timeline for the EU ad/sponsorship ban. If so, the Austria Tabak advertising budget, currently more than 20 times that of Smoke Sucks, will have begun to decline, making the playing field a little more even.

Then it will be only a few more years till the company is forced to stop sponsoring a Division One football club (Austria Memphis). And the posters on the streets of Vienna today, celebrating the cooperation between Austria Tabak and the Rolling Stones, will eventually become historical curiosities--and valuable collectors' items.

When PM has been unable to control anti-smoking campaigns for youth, it has sabotaged them, as was the case in the Philippines a few years ago. Will Austria Tabak try to do the same to Smoke Sucks? Time will tell. For now the monopolist is probably satisfied to simply overwhelm the challenger with its enormous budget advantage. But as that advantage declines and the company begins to lose the contact with Austrian youth it has so long profited from, its tactics may well change.

Let us hope that by then it will be too late to reverse progress made by the Smoke Sucks campaign. At 28%, youth smoking rates in Austria are currently higher than anywhere else in Europe except Greenland. There's only one way to go from the top, and Austrians tend to be good at going downhill fast.

Hopefully they will take advantage of this opportunity to do so for better health.