I certainly didn't want to get into a nomenclature debate; if you want to use the term "value" instead of "budget," fine with me.

Obviously demographics plays a big role in all this; not a high percentage of HAL cruisers are going to be the same demographic as people who stay in hostels or who hit Fred Meyer for their groceries first thing on landing.

The OP asked, "Mightn't Alaska do better on tourism by acknowledging that budget travel there is possible?" and then went on to talk about FF awards and fly-drive.

IMO the whole point of states and localities promoting tourism is to leverage some kind of economic multiplier out of visitor expenditures. If you promote tourism to people who will only camp and hike, make sandwiches instead of patronizing local restaurants, use rent-a-wreck car hire companies, and limit their entertainment spend to watching float planes taxi around at Lake Hood, why bother? Those people are costing the state income, not adding to it.

In my quick read of Alaska tourism promotional literature I don't see any evidence of attempts to discourage "budget" travel; but I don't think it's realistic for the tourism promotion people, nor for travel agents, to advocate it especially. I think most people in the tourism and travel industry are well aware that there are ample channels doing so already. Go over and look at the threads on the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree for evidence.