Box size

[speaknspell]

Currently: box sizes are predetermined with only a specific amount of choices available for retail sets (I think there's about 7 choices). It was done this way so that every set wouldn't have a custom box size based on its part count. Sometimes this means that a set might be just too big for a smaller box size but may seem small in a bigger box size, but since there's only the limited choice to make sure the boxing machines don't have to be reset constantly you'll end up having this bigger box with what feels like less pieces.

The whole system is currently being evaluated. We are conscious of the environment for sure. Remember that the current system is the one we put in place to help save the company from the mess we were in back in 2004. Now that the company is healthy again we're able to re-evaluate a lot of things again, but anytime something is implemented it lasts a few years no matter what.

Steve

[onions]

The whole system is currently being evaluated. We are conscious of the environment for sure.

And thus hope was born.

[theJudeAbides]

The whole system is currently being evaluated. We are conscious of the environment for sure.

And thus hope was born.

A New Hope?

Awesome!

[natelite]

Not exactly true... first, LEGO is privately held, so they're not accountable to any shareholders. But all retailers, especially toy retailers, are accountable to creating and meeting consumer whims. We're not talking about changing consumer minds here, more of presenting options based on consumer minds before they know its there.

i don't want to make a big deal out of it...not sure which planet you are from but even privately held companies have shareholders. privately held just means you can't buy the shares openly in the market.

also, TLG DID come up with greener boxes but consumers rejected the smaller boxes in favor of bigger boxes.

my reply was solely in response to the idea that companies drive consumers' demand. that is of course a highly flawed thinking. companies meet consumers' demand. not the other way round.

[dWhisper]

Neptune. And while I'm intended to make some sort of comment about why such a point is a need for an insult; instead, I'll clarify. But take a look at the post on attitude in the Start Here section, please.

You're correct that privately held corporations do have shareholders, but they are not governed by the same regulations as a publicly traded company. Filing regulations are quite different, and LEGO doesn't have to run with nearly as many disclosures or filings as a publicly traded company, say like Walmart or Google. And not all companies have shareholders, just corporations (and not always all of those, LLCs are odd ducks). Given that all LEGO shares are held by the same family, and not available to buy, they're filed as a corporation for tax purposes, but operated much closer to a partnership or proprietorship.

[natelite]

sorry, i may be the only one but i don't think your explanation make much sense. at the end of the day, how you file has little bearing on accountability. the end result is to make money for the equity holders, be they shareholders or partners.

[MrCRskater]

Given that all LEGO shares are held by the same family, and not available to buy, they're filed as a corporation for tax purposes, but operated much closer to a partnership or proprietorship.

sorry, i may be the only one but i don't think your explanation make much sense. at the end of the day, how you file has little bearing on accountability. the end result is to make money for the equity holders, be they shareholders or partners.

*Facepalm*. . . WHOOSH - is there a breeze in here or did someone miss something?

[natelite]

Given that all LEGO shares are held by the same family, and not available to buy, they're filed as a corporation for tax purposes, but operated much closer to a partnership or proprietorship.

sorry, i may be the only one but i don't think your explanation make much sense. at the end of the day, how you file has little bearing on accountability. the end result is to make money for the equity holders, be they shareholders or partners.

*Facepalm*. . . WHOOSH - is there a breeze in here or did someone miss something?

and your point is that they are not out to make a profit?

[speaknspell]

Its because we have a set of about 8 box sizes that we use in order to keep pallettes efficient for shipping. If a set is too big for one size it will be smaller in the next size.

"Steve, why is LEGO being so bad to the environment with extra box paper and what not???!?!!"

Aha, that's the thing though, the set box sizes work in such a way that it maximizes our pallete efficiency. In the last two years we've cut the amount of truckloads that have to be used to haul our product by nearly 50% (that may not be the exact, but its a huge amount). This has actually helped the company be significantly greener and reduce our carbon footprint even if you sometimes get a bigger box that you'd expect. The efficiency factor also saves us money by having to do less truckloads. Two birds with one stone my friend.

Steve

[Old Republic]

Sorry for digging this one up after a month of dormancy but after reading this through, actually a more interesting read than I thought it would be btw, I was surprised that not one person mentioned security. Smaller items are easier to shoplift than larger ones, so does that play into box size at all?

[Mister Ed]

my reply was solely in response to the idea that companies drive consumers' demand. that is of course a highly flawed thinking. companies meet consumers' demand. not the other way round.

So you reject the notion that companies actually try to manipulate consumer demand? That companies work to try to make the consumer want things that they wouldn't have thought of wanting on their own? Really?

Wow, so the advertising industry is running quite the scam on companies, aren't they? Because I'm pretty sure that is the main purpose of that industry- to CREATE consumer demand for a product. But according to you, they don't do that, so I guess the companies are paying the advertising firms for nothing!

It seems obvious to me that there is give and take on this. Consumer demand can be, and IS manipulated through advertising, but there IS a limit to how effective that can be, and companies DO try to meet the demands that originate solely from the consumer, when they can do so profitably, because it is often cheaper and easier to sell the consumer what they are already asking for than to try to convince them that they want/need what you are offering.

[LEGOscum]

Walmart has invented a new way to send milk to the store that saved some 33% of transportation costs.

How, by milking the cows around the back of the store?

[buhs]

I think the reason is obvious... LEGO is freakin' expensive! Given that the "larger" sets are well over $100 (especially Star Wars and other licensed sets), there is a psychological effect going on here. Would you pay $120 for a box of plastic that is 8 inches by 2 inches by 8 inches... I think not! Multiply that by a factor or 5 in a couple of dimensions... and there you go! The issue here is that once a LEGO set is assembled there is a lot of empty space inside. If you were to "IKEA" it, it wouldn't seem like good value for the money... after all, the American psyche is all about buckets of cola, and troughs of fries! (I'm Canadian, but that's pretty close too!)