Bill, you disagree on experience grounds. But do you agree the underlying psychology is good? I have a hard time imagining that having a local player play one RBO per year won’t want to join the USCF on a more permanent basis more often than not. Or at least enough for the program to be revenue even (as opposed to those players who would have joined the USCF anyways without such an RBO experience). The rating psychology is just so addictive. Which, in your experience, of these assumptions is wrong or what non-mentioned factor made the free/reduced RBO program a failure?
If I were running these, I would not have membership awards as prizes. They seem counterintuitive as the winner is the player in the event most likely to want to join the USCF anyway (alternately, he/she may already have an u1200 rating and be a USCF member). Leave the prizes to the organizer and their club. Run an event and see if people can wait a whole year before playing in their next event. Some will. But enough others to make the program profitable will want to join up I think.
Edit: Also, Bill, with regards to your experience in this issue, was much of it attached to small club events?
Edit2: Also, doesn’t the program deserve to be tried outside the auspices of the Fischer boom?