Beyond the Backpack: State Bags’ Evolving Approach to Philanthropy in a Shifting Landscape

Navigating the complexities of social impact, State Bags has quietly refined its strategy from overt advocacy to sustained, behind-the-scenes commitment, reflecting broader trends in corporate responsibility.

In the bustling world of direct-to-consumer brands, where a compelling mission can be a powerful differentiator, State Bags has charted a unique course. Founded on a deeply personal desire to provide life-changing experiences to underprivileged children, the company has evolved its approach to philanthropy from a prominent brand pillar to a more understated, yet arguably more resilient, operational commitment. This shift is not merely a marketing tactic but a calculated response to a changing socio-political climate and a nuanced understanding of consumer behavior, offering valuable insights into the future of corporate social responsibility.

Introduction

State Bags, a brand synonymous with stylish, high-quality backpacks, was born from a profound desire to address a visible need: children in under-resourced communities carrying their belongings in inadequate bags. Co-founders Scot and Jacqueline Tatelman, inspired by their own idyllic summer camp experiences, launched a nonprofit in their early twenties to bring disadvantaged youth into nature. Witnessing firsthand the struggles of these children, often seen with their possessions in flimsy plastic bags, ignited a vision for a business that could directly address this disparity. In 2013, they co-founded State, a company that operates on a “buy one, give one” model, donating a backpack to a child in need for every one purchased. This article delves into why State Bags has moved towards a more “stealth” approach to its philanthropy, exploring the motivations behind this strategy, the broader context of corporate social activism, and the enduring impact of their mission-driven ethos.

Context and Background

The genesis of State Bags is rooted in a personal experience that highlighted a tangible social issue. Scot and Jacqueline Tatelman, drawing from their childhood summers spent at sleep-away camps, recognized the transformative potential of such experiences for children from less privileged backgrounds. In 2009, they established a nonprofit aimed at providing these wilderness experiences to students from Brooklyn and the Bronx. During these excursions, the Tatelmans were struck by the condition of the children’s belongings. Scot recalls, “Many brought all their things in trash bags or plastic Duane Reade bags.” A particularly poignant moment involved a girl whose bag ripped on a train platform, scattering her possessions. This observation underscored a critical need for durable, functional bags for these children, many of whom lived in close proximity to the Tatelmans in New York City.

Jacqueline, whose family had a background in the fashion industry, felt equipped to address this need by establishing a buy-one, give-one backpack business. Despite being pregnant at the time, she channeled her skills into building the company. The decision to focus on the “premium end of the market” was a strategic one, aimed at generating sufficient profit margins to support their philanthropic endeavors. As Scot explained, “We made the deliberate decision to focus on the premium end of the market so we would have enough margin to donate to the philanthropic efforts.”

The operational division of labor within State reflects their core missions. Jacqueline initially served as Chief Creative Officer and later took on the role of CEO in 2020, steering the company through financial challenges and achieving significant revenue growth, reportedly increasing it by 1,000% to reach eight figures. Meanwhile, Scot remained dedicated to the philanthropic arm, with Jacqueline allocating substantial funds—hundreds of thousands of dollars annually—to support his work, which includes not only backpack donations but also the organization of summer camps and, during the pandemic, one-on-one tutoring for academically struggling New York City students. The company’s commitment to its mission is further solidified by its practice of reinvesting profits exceeding financial targets into its philanthropic initiatives the following year.

In-Depth Analysis

The Tatelmans’ decision to adopt a more understated approach to their philanthropy is deeply intertwined with the evolving landscape of corporate social activism. Scot has articulated that being a mission-driven brand has always presented challenges, particularly in the current climate, where efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have faced scrutiny and opposition from certain political factions, including the Trump administration.

Even during periods when social justice initiatives were more broadly embraced, communicating the brand’s impactful work proved difficult. Scot observed a growing consumer skepticism towards brands that heavily promoted their social missions, viewing them as potential “cheap marketing ploys.” This ubiquy of mission-driven claims, he noted, created an environment where genuine commitment could be drowned out by what he termed “noise.” He explained, “There was a time when every brand said it was mission-driven… Consumers began to see it as a cheap marketing ploy. And now, when you’re committed to social justice you have a target on your back. You just can’t win.” This sentiment led State to believe that an approach of “under-communicating, but over-delivering” would be more effective. The rationale is supported by evidence suggesting that while consumers may express a preference for ethical brands, their purchasing decisions are not consistently driven by these values. A 2024 study by scholars from the University of Chicago and New York University, tracking the spending habits of 24,000 consumers, found that stated preferences for ethical companies had no discernible impact on their buying behavior, even before a recent shift in national sentiment.

The “pendulum of corporate philanthropy” has indeed swung dramatically. When State Bags launched in 2013, the direct-to-consumer model was increasingly characterized by brands positioning themselves as not only profitable but also socially conscious. Companies like Warby Parker and Bombas exemplified this trend with their buy-one, give-one models, while Everlane focused on supply chain transparency, and brands like Allbirds and Reformation prioritized eco-friendly practices. This ethos extended to larger corporations and saw a significant surge in support for DEI initiatives following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Scot Tatelman expressed a degree of ambivalence about this trend, acknowledging that it validated his belief in “business for good” while simultaneously contributing to consumer cynicism due to its widespread adoption.

The subsequent shift in the corporate and political climate has been marked by a backlash against corporate activism, with the Trump administration and various shareholders urging companies to disengage from DEI initiatives. This pressure has led prominent companies, such as Target and Google, to scale back their DEI programs. James Surowiecki, in a Fast Company article, suggests that abandoning these initiatives can also be a strategy for companies to “cut losses” in a challenging environment.

In light of these dynamics, State Bags’ current strategy focuses on projecting an image of a company primarily concerned with product sales, with philanthropic efforts subtly woven into its narrative. Clues about their mission are primarily found on the company’s “about” page and through occasional Instagram posts. Scot believes this organic approach is more authentic: “We’ve found that the best and most authentic way for people to learn about the mission is organically, as opposed to shoving it down their throat,” he stated. “If they want to know more, they’ll dig deeper. But many will not, and we’re okay with that.” This philosophy acknowledges that while a significant portion of the consumer base may not actively seek out a brand’s social mission, those who do will be met with transparent, albeit less overt, evidence of commitment. This approach also acts as a protective measure against potential backlash or accusations of performative activism.

Pros and Cons

The “stealth philanthropy” approach adopted by State Bags presents a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages:

Pros:

• Resilience in a Volatile Climate: By reducing overt public pronouncements about its social mission, State Bags becomes less of a target for political criticism and backlash, allowing it to continue its work irrespective of prevailing socio-political trends. This is particularly relevant given the pressures faced by companies with DEI initiatives.
• Authenticity and Deeper Engagement: The emphasis on organic discovery can foster a more genuine connection with consumers who are actively seeking out brands with a purpose. Those who “dig deeper” are likely to be more invested in the brand’s values and mission.
• Focus on Impact Over Optics: Under-communicating allows the company to prioritize the actual delivery of philanthropic aid rather than the public relations surrounding it, potentially leading to more substantial and sustained impact.
• Employee Engagement and Motivation: As highlighted by Jacqueline Tatelman, the mission provides a powerful internal driver for employees, offering a sense of purpose that can foster loyalty and dedication, especially during challenging business periods. The ability for staff to dedicate time to philanthropic projects can also be a significant perk.
• Sustainable Business Model: Focusing on a premium market segment ensures sufficient margins to support ongoing charitable contributions, creating a more sustainable model for integrating business and social good.

Cons:

• Reduced Brand Visibility for Philanthropy: The understated approach may limit the reach and awareness of State Bags’ philanthropic efforts, potentially missing opportunities to inspire a wider audience or attract additional support.
• Missed Marketing Opportunities: While reducing the risk of backlash, a less visible mission might also mean foregoing the positive brand association and customer loyalty that can stem from clearly articulated social impact.
• Potential for Misinterpretation: Some consumers might perceive the lack of overt communication as a decline in commitment or even a disinterest in social issues, which could be a misinterpretation of the brand’s strategy.
• Dependence on Consumer Diligence: The success of this approach relies on consumers proactively seeking information about the brand’s mission. For many, this level of engagement may not occur, limiting the intended broader impact.
• Challenges in Measuring Public Perception of Mission: It can be harder to gauge how effectively the mission is being communicated and perceived when it’s not a primary focus of public discourse about the brand.

Key Takeaways

• State Bags was founded on a personal mission to provide underprivileged children with life-changing camp experiences and essential supplies like backpacks.
• The company operates on a “buy one, give one” model, donating a backpack for every one sold, with a strategic focus on the premium market to ensure sufficient donation margins.
• Co-founders Scot and Jacqueline Tatelman have a clear division of labor, with Scot focused on the philanthropic initiatives and Jacqueline leading the business operations.
• State Bags has transitioned to a more understated, “stealth” approach to communicating its philanthropy due to increased skepticism towards mission-driven marketing and a desire to avoid political backlash.
• This strategy is informed by research indicating that consumer purchasing behavior is not consistently driven by stated preferences for ethical brands.
• The company believes in under-communicating but over-delivering, relying on consumers to organically discover their mission through channels like the company’s “about” page and social media.
• State Bags’ mission contributes to employee engagement and provides a motivating factor for leadership, particularly during difficult business periods.
• The brand’s philanthropic efforts remain steadfast, offering a model for how businesses can maintain social impact amidst shifting political climates and consumer attitudes.
• The company’s approach reflects a broader trend of companies re-evaluating their public stance on social issues in response to economic and political pressures.

Future Outlook

The future outlook for mission-driven brands like State Bags is complex, shaped by ongoing shifts in consumer expectations, economic conditions, and the political environment. As companies that previously embraced overt social activism continue to navigate the pressures to disengage, those that can maintain a genuine commitment, even if quietly, may find greater long-term sustainability. State Bags’ strategy of “under-communicating, but over-delivering” appears to position them well to weather such storms. Their focus on building a resilient business with sufficient profit margins to support their philanthropic work suggests a sustainable model that is less susceptible to the whims of public opinion or political pressure.

The Tatelmans’ commitment to their core mission, particularly Scot’s continued focus on direct support for children through camps and tutoring, demonstrates that the impact of their work extends beyond product donations. As Scot notes, “Many communities that are struggling because companies offered to help them but are now retreating. We really need more companies to step up and fill in the gaps.” This highlights a critical role for businesses in supporting communities, especially when traditional funding for nonprofits may be declining. State Bags’ ability to remain a consistent source of support, even without a loud public declaration, could prove to be a more impactful long-term strategy for community engagement.

Furthermore, the growing emphasis on authenticity in brand messaging suggests that consumers, while perhaps less responsive to overt activism, are still receptive to genuine purpose. If State Bags can continue to deliver on its mission transparently to those who seek it out, it could foster a loyal customer base that values impact alongside product quality. The company’s future success will likely depend on its ability to maintain this delicate balance: ensuring its philanthropic efforts are impactful and sustainable while communicating them in a way that resonates authentically with its target audience and protects against external pressures.

Call to Action

For consumers interested in supporting brands that actively contribute to social good, understanding the nuances of corporate philanthropy is key. State Bags exemplifies a model where impact is prioritized, and communication strategies adapt to the prevailing environment. Those who are inspired by the company’s mission to provide enriching experiences and essential supplies to children in need are encouraged to explore their offerings. To learn more about State Bags’ philanthropic initiatives and the impact they are making, visit their official website and read their “about” page to understand their commitment firsthand. Engaging with their content on social media, particularly on platforms like Instagram where they occasionally share updates, can also provide insights into their ongoing work. By supporting brands like State Bags, consumers can contribute to a more equitable future while also investing in quality products.