The assumption that, in order to make a product 'better', one has to add more features and complexity is common in the software industry. This is despite the many, many times you hear developers and marketers ridicule Microsoft's decade-long descent into bloatware production. In marketing, where the driver is to tick as many boxes as possible, this approach often makes even a straightforward product seem needlessly complex.
I recently had a chat with a company that had suffered a bad exhibition experience. They'd taken a chance on an exhibition that wasn't aimed directly at their target market but. they felt, would attract an audience with sufficient interest in their products to make it worthwhile. It didn't. If you're considering taking a chance on an exhibition that isn't directly addressing your traditional audience, how do you tell if it's a worthwhile gamble?