Smaller boxes.

[AC]

Here is a link to a picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/56091784@N06/5484326119/

[DeGobbi]

smaller boxes measn less cardboard which means more trees stay in the ground ., if you ask me

[Pascal]

And less shipping cost...
Too bad it doesn't mean cheaper LEGO.

[timtosino]

Maybe Walmart is making them go smaller so they can cram more into the Toy Section, the Toy Sections at Super Centers are hopelessly small

[michael]

Yea the smaller the better. Some LEGO sets are in boxes waaay too big. It's like buying cereal just to get home and find out you own 50% less honey nut cheerios than you thought. Except for LEGO it makes even less sense.

I would still buy LEGO if they only came in a bag. But some people are more the collector type, and really enjoy the boxes.

[RadStar]

More compact is good. I dont know why a bigger box would be better for any good reason really. Looks like we're unanimous on this

[Platypus]

I think a bigger picture is better for marketting. But I would think that the negative impact of kids finding a box half empty would out weigh that anyway.

LEGO boxes are way too big, and it's ridiculous. When buying a bunch of a set, I often fit 3-6 of a set into a single box for easier transport. It's horrid when you think about all the shipping and packging and space wasted.

[chump]

Maybe Walmart is making them go smaller so they can cram more into the Toy Section, the Toy Sections at Super Centers are hopelessly small

Tim is on the right track. Costco "requests" smaller packaging so that they can fit more per pallet, thereby reducing shipping costs. Less pallets, less trucks, less fuel and transportation costs. Walmart probably applied similar "requests" to Lego. Otherwise, they would remain large from a marketing perspective as Platypus points out.