# New RFI Model for Behavioral Audience Segmentation in Wi-Fi Advertising System
## 5 Discussion
The actual ranges of Campaign 764 and Campaign 776 in the special case are shown in Table 7.  
Referring to the special case in Table 7, the audience of Campaign 764 in Cluster 1 is interpreted as the audience that portrayed the shortest gap time from the last engagement (2.2631), high frequency (4.1508), and low interest in the advertisement (3.9372). In contrast, the largest proportion of audience from Cluster 2 portrays the shortest gap time from the last engagement (3.1215), low frequency (1.2158), and no interest in the advertisement (0.0000). Cluster 3 demonstrates the least favorable outcome, with the audience displaying the longest gap time from the last engagement (**10.1718**), low frequency (**1.0568**), and low interest in the advertisement (**0.0112**). On the other hand, the most favorable outcome is shown in Cluster 4, featuring an audience group with the shortest gap time from the last engagement (2.7980), highest frequency (**4.8110**), and high interest in the advertisement (**115.7868**). Lastly, the audience group in Cluster 5 exhibits a long gap time from the last engagement (6.6500), low frequency (1.3161), and medium interest in the advertisement (27.4169). To interpret the audience characteristics of each cluster in the two most ac \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Campaign** & **Audience** & **Audience** & **Cluster** & **Recency \(\downarrow\)** & **Frequency \(\uparrow\)** & **Interest \(\uparrow\)** \\  & **Number** & **Percentage** & **Cluster** & **(Day)** & **(Time)** & **(Second)** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{(Total audience 19,777)} & 1764 & 8.92\% & 1 & 2.2631 & 4.1508 & 3.9372 \\  & 8458 & 42.77\% & 2 & 3.1215 & 1.2158 & 0.0000 \\  & 7514 & 37.99\% & 3 & **10.1718** & **1.0568** & **0.0112** \\  & 127 & 0.64\% & 4 & **2.7980** & **4.8110** & **115.7868** \\  & 1914 & 9.68\% & 5 & 6.6500 & 1.3161 & 27.4169 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{(Total audience 19,524)} & 7570 & 38.77\% & 1 & **10.2471** & **1.0577** & **0.2763** \\  & 1647 & 8.44\% & 2 & 2.2784 & 4.1299 & 3.0429 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 8274 & 42.38\% & 3 & 3.1014 & 1.2127 & 0.0000 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 138 & 0.71\% & 4 & **2.8428** & **4.8696** & **115.9700** \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1895 & 9.70\% & 5 & 6.0973 & 1.3858 & 28.2536 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Mean of RFI value in each cluster of two most active campaigns for the special case. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Campaign** & **Audience** & **Audience** & **Cluster** & **Recency \(\downarrow\)** & **Frequency \(\uparrow\)** & **Interest \(\uparrow\)** \\  & **Number** & **Percentage** & **(Day)** & **(Time)** & **(Second)** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{(Total audience 19,777)} & 1693 & 8.56\% & 1 & 2.3156 & 4.1784 & 0.1110 \\  & 8457 & 42.76\% & 2 & 3.1211 & 1.2157 & 0.0000 \\  & 7511 & 37.98\% & 3 & **10.1687** & **1.0570** & **0.0000** \\  & 122 & 0.62\% & 4 & 2.5039 & 5.3934 & 3.6148 \\  & 1994 & 10.08\% & 5 & 6.4750 & 1.3661 & 1.0587 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{(Total audience 19,524)} & 7483 & 38.33\% & 1 & **10.2028** & **1.0588** & **0.0000** \\  & 1601 & 8.20\% & 2 & 2.3031 & 4.1537 & 0.0906 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 8268 & 42.35\% & 3 & 3.0987 & 1.2124 & 0.0000 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 131 & 0.67\% & 4 & 2.4740 & 5.2595 & **3.7023** \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2041 & 10.45\% & 5 & 6.3460 & 1.3988 & 1.0642 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Mean of RFI value in each cluster of two most active campaigns for the normal case. tive campaigns, Table 8 presents the characteristics of each cluster associated with their actual range. Based on the observation in Table 8, it is evident that the characteristics revealed distinct behavioral patterns among the groups of audiences. In both cases, audience group exhibiting strongly engaged behaviors covered the smallest portion, whereas the group displaying weakly engaged behavior comprised the second largest portion across all the campaigns.