Good question. But it could be that the hype cycle is a natural part of idea development and it may even hide beneficial effects to the timeline of refining a concept. It's kind of hard to say because we can't go back and do an empirical experiment; to try and develop the same technology twice, once with short, sexy buzzwords which spread through the media like an STD and once with dull but realistic scientific papers that never reach any laypeople until the tech is actually done and applied to products and services.

I guess a way to tamp it down might be to avoid appointing big, singular celebrity personalities as officers in the company, to carefully plan press releases, and try to describe concepts precisely and plainly instead of with trendy terms. But it's still so hard to predict what kind of terminology will have that buzz factor before it hits the public, so it might all be pissing up a rope.

Once more, it might actually be a bad idea to try and combat the over-hyping phenomenon when all is said and done. Sure, there's a trough of disillusionment, but there's also a lot of skilled individuals who get swept up in the gravity well of that concept anyway and add talent and funding despite the fact that expectations overshoot reality at first. It might not be so destructive or wasteful, but instead we place too much psychological weight on disappointment and let it blind us to the more modest and slow (but realistic) benefits. I think we as a culture are terribly phobic of disappointment.

Of course some hype cycles don't end in a plateau which gradually progresses upwards--some ideas just die. Who knows how to really spot one of those in time to do any good, though. Hindsight is a benefit we don't get until it's too late, and we must simply try to apply what we learned to the next thing. The next thing is always a little different, though, so it's never a perfect prediction.

For reference if anybody hasn't seen it already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle