This is a complicated subject that isn't as easy as it seems. I completely understand what the OP and others are saying, but bear with me for a minute here while I play devils advocate. Let's look at a few of the big flashy marketing centric tents in both recent and past years:
1) Eclipse Jet - Had huge tents, lots of fancy marketing. Burned through $150M+....bankrupt. Sold less airplanes in their entire life than Van's does in one year.
2) Cirrus - huge tents, lots of marketing materials, had their own financial squeeze....sold to the Chinese. Incidentally, sold less airplanes last year than Van's did.
3) Teledyne Continental - big tents, lots of marketing. Sold to the Chinese.
4) Beechcraft - big tents, lots of marketing. Bankrupt. Less single pistons delivered in each of the last few years than Van's has registered in months.
5) Mooney - big tents, lots of marketing. Bankrupt multiple times, sold less airplanes in the last number of years combined than Vans had registered last year.
6) Piper - Bankrupt a couple of times. Sold WAY less airplanes in the past few years than Vans.
7) Cessna - big tents, lots of marketing. Sold less single piston airplanes each year the past several years (including their LSA's) than Vans did.
8) Icon - REALLY big budget for marketing, sales, etc.. Raised over $100M in funding, yet have managed to deliver exactly ZERO airplanes.
9) Epic Aircraft - lots of marketing, big display. Bankrupt - sold partly to the Chinese.
10) Diamond Aircraft - big tents, nice marketing. They have their own financial issues, still have never sold as many planes as Vans.
11) Columbia Aircraft - big displays, lots of marketing. Bankrupt. Never delivered as many planes in a year as Vans.
12) Adam Aircraft - big tent with lots of marketing. Bankrupt.
13) Stoddard Hamilton (Glasair) - pretty nice displays some years. Bankrupt and on their third (Chinese) owner in not too many years.
14) Lancair - also some pretty impressive displays over the years. Now on their 3rd owner in not too many years.
15) Skystar - spent a lot of money on marketing for a few years...Bankrupt.
16) Europa - spent a lot on marketing for a couple years...went Bankrupt.
17) Wheeler - spent a good amount on marketing for a year or so....went Bankrupt.
18) OMF/Symphony Aircraft - lots of $$'s spent...Bankrupt (twice).
19) Rotorway - some years spent lots of money...Bankrupt.
20) ....and the Grandaddy of them all - no details needed. BEDE
I guess in the end my point with the above list (which could go on and on) doesn't necessarily show a direct link between expending money on marketing equating to success and sales.
I am someone who also has a pretty Spartan/bare bones booth (following Van's lead). It might sound easy just to "spend a little bit more money" to make things nicer, but if you knew how much it already costs just to do it as miserly as we do; then the added cost is difficult to justify. Sure it might sound like only a few extra dollars per kit, but it's likely it would be much more than that. If that could be shown to have a direct result on sales or profit then I'd be all for it, but if it's immeasurable then it would be difficult to justify.
I also know the people there do the best they can all week. It's a VERY loooong week to work every day, and I think any of us that do that show who are really busy can come across the wrong way sometimes (I know I do occasionally), we always have much more time outside of the show than during the show so sometimes we all can come across a little short or impatient (or zombie like at the end of the week)!
Lastly, it's probably similar in that of us lacking tons of outside investment are all very careful with our expenditures. Anyway, I can see both sides of this as one who is on both sides, but personally I think those guys have done a pretty darned good job given what the competitive landscape looks like (littered with failures for years and years).
Just my 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein