Apple Privacy & Facebook Advertising

[Ozzy]

Picking up from where the conversation headed in this website review request...

With Apple's drive towards user privacy, their latest updates on iPhone/iOS and their Safari web browser by default block tracking pixels. For Facebook in particular, as I've experienced this first hand, this makes tracking your Return on Investment for advertising (tracking sales from Facebook Ads) inaccurate. It's also makes things such as re-marketing a thing of the past, and demographic targeting less accurate too (as they cannot measure who your target market is based on your website sales activities).

I get the perceived value to members of the public, the wish to not have your website user behaviour tracked. The cynic in me is very much does it really matter, what you got to hide? As a heavy Google user myself with them knowing everything plus my inside leg measurement, I don't care and actually prefer to see targeted ads to my interests than random ones.
I also see this as a huge negative blow for businesses needing to promote and advertise their wears. If you cannot accurately measure your marketing spend, and cannot fine tune the targeting of your marketing spend, then especially small business with limited budgets at a time such as now are surely being heavily impacted by this.

Thoughts? Suggestions? What do you think?

 

[fisicx]

It’s not so much that you want to track my visits, it’s more to do with FB selling that data on.

You can track visitors to any website without cookies, your server does this by default.

 

[Ozzy]

your server does this by default

Not really to a level that is need for effective Facebook marketing.
It tracks your IP (location) and the pages your visit, but it doesn't reconcile that to your social demographic or even link a purchase you made it to a specific Advert you may have viewed on Instagram[1].
[1] - Changes a few years ago in HTTP Header-Referrer rules means source is no longer possible, and utm tags are not reliable either as it would seem Apple/Safari strips them out too.

 

[gpietersz]

The cynic in me is very much does it really matter, what you got to hide?

Lots of things. If not can you please share your medical history and bank statements and put a live stream webcam in your bedroom?

 

[Ozzy]

Lots of things. If not can you please share your medical history and bank statements and put a live stream webcam in your bedroom?

If a tracking cookie did actually reveal your medical history, my bank statements and also connected you to the live webcam in my bedroom then I would agree with you. However they don't so I'm afraid I'm not on the same page as you. I think you're referring to security issues, not browsing habits.

All this Apple update does is stop the likes of advertisers on Facebook knowing what pages you looked at on their website, and what products you purchased. Even then it doesn't link the advertiser to the actual individual, only aggregated data.

Anyway, subscribe to my OnlyFans for my webcam access...that isn't free.

 

[gpietersz]

f a tracking cookie did actually reveal your medical history, my bank statements and also connected you to the live webcam in my bedroom then I would agree with you.

Not tracking cookies on UKBF. However tracking cookies on sites with medical information, or other sensitive information may reveal a lot.

All this Apple update does is stop the likes of advertisers on Facebook knowing what pages you looked at on their website

It also gives FB the complete history of all your visits to all sites with tracking pixels.

Anyway, subscribe to my OnlyFans for my webcam access...that isn't free.

 

[Ozzy]

However tracking cookies on sites with medical information, or other sensitive information may reveal a lot.

Unless those sites have been built by someone with really bad, basically no, knowledge of security then this shouldn't be an issue. The pixel tracks URL's and clicks, again talking my understanding of Facebook here, not UX monitoring tools like Hotjar.
The only way this would be an issue is if the medical website was designed to publish sensitive information into something like a GET variable, and if that happened the web designer should be executed without a trial.

It also gives FB the complete history of all your visits to all sites with tracking pixels.

Are you sure about this?
I'm pretty sure the FB pixel on my wife's website does not give her access to visitor information on Natwest's website, or the NHS website, and so on. Unless it's in a hidden menu item I haven't found yet.
It only gives you access to audience lists of people from your own website, and only if you have verified you own the domain name. It also gives you access to conversion metrics to link to your adverts (if someone clicks this page that counts as a sale sort of stuff).

 

[Paul Carmen]

Ignoring privacy concerns and what Facebook collects versus what you have access to in your FB account (they certainly don't share it all with you, even prior to iOS 14.5 changes), the 'let Facebook's AI and pixel manage ads' was never a great option.

The attribution and measurement side of things is key to running successful campaigns on any platforms, both Facebook and Google have made this increasing difficult to do over recent years, trying to force people down the AI automated bid/setup route.

The shocking detail is that Facebook is really not great at this level of tracking, the Google Ads tracking is 90%+ accurate and therefore gives good results, the Facebook pixel does not. I don't know how you measure performance and setup your wife's Facebook Ads, but unless you ran multiple Ads and lots of tests, then measured these in other tools on top of Facebook Ads management, then the likelihood is that these could be improved significantly even before the iOS changes.

I'm assuming this is website tracking, not App tracking, based on your original post. There are a few things you can do to improve the situation in FB post iOS 14.5, these are:

1. Verify your Domain in Facebook
   
2. Turn Aggregated Event Measurement on in Facebook
   
3. Follow best practice campaign setup; e.g.
   1. setup A/B & multivariate tests
   2. have unique landing pages for each advert you run & all tests
   3. have a proper tracking methodology for all contact points (e.g. sales, form fills, phone calls, texts etc.)

Point 3 is key, we run Google and Facebook ads for lots of clients and we ensure we can measure every conversion.

The key is not to rely on the Google or Facebook cookie/pixel, but to have your own tracking enabled and read that data from your own cookie into your own tracking setup, that way you know source, ads, pages landed on, page converted on, plus any site level of form data you may want to capture.

That way you can optimise adverts, keywords (Google/Bing), geo areas, landing pages etc, you would be amazed at how much more accurate this and how Facebook's tracking doesn't tell the whole story. It will allow you to make big changes and improve ROI significantly.

If you implemented this type of setup the only data you can't see fully is demographic data, but you should get a good idea of this from both your client base and FB will still give you this from other sources (e.g. Android devices, desktop and Event Measurement data etc).

 

[gpietersz]

Unless those sites have been built by someone with really bad, basically no, knowledge of security then this shouldn't be an issue.

That is not what I mean, not direct data leaks from a site that has information, but what FB can infer.

If they can see you have visted multiple pages for information about a particular disease and then a site for a support group for the disease etc. FB can infer you have it.

They have this information on top of what you have given them, and information they have bought from other sources - they can infer quite a lot.

Are you sure about this?
I'm pretty sure the FB pixel on my wife's website does not give her access to visitor information on Natwest's website, or the NHS website, and so on

That is not what I said - FB has all that information.

 

[ctrlbrk]

Thoughts? Suggestions? What do you think?

I've always been a pro-privacy guy. Now that I am looking to start my own gig, the idea of analysing detailed user behaviour is far more attractive to me. Of course.

Ah, the irony of being on opposite sides of the fence...

I tend to think in terms of impact - the real questions are

1. What % of mobile Vs. non-mobile (e.g. PC) devices is any given website likely to get as audience?
2. For mobile devices, what % of Apple Vs. Android?
3. For Apple devices, how can we measure the ROI impact before and after the privacy restrictions?

I suspect answer to 1 is based on context (your business, demographics, etc.), but for the rest I have no idea on current market share of Apple Vs Android mobile devices.

About question 3 - can we tell how accurate the measure of spend is before the restrictions? Can we tell how accurate it is likely to be after?

 

[Ozzy]

That is not what I said - FB has all that information.

Ah with you. I was coming from the perspective of what you as an advertiser had access to. In that case; I'm not too fussed what Facebook knows about me because I realise I'm their product. Kinda prefer to have targeted ads than random, thoughts stemmed from when one of Facebooks original developers said "If you're not paying for a product then you are the product" in the film Social Dilemma it resonated (an interesting watch on Netflix).

About question 3 - can we tell how accurate the measure of spend is before the restrictions? Can we tell how accurate is likely to be after?

Before, yes the advertising worked and we have a good ROI and could see what ads worked quite clearly. Now many of our audiences are no longer useable, and the conversions are "estimates" made by FB which doesn't correlate to actual volume of orders we've had. FB reports state sometimes it think's we've had twice as many orders than we actually have had.
One thing I haven't setup is Google Analytics to track FB advertising as @Paul Carmen mentions above, mainly because FB reports always served the purpose we needed at the time. Having said that, will probably need to look at this some more because most of my wife's business comes from Instagram, with orders via Facebook Commerce/Shop, completing on her site. Might explain why any other form of tracking like GA doesn't pick it up.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Marketing that cannot be tracked is often a wasted investment

People make me laugh
They post pictures of where they are with their new car and number plate ,their vaccine passport with all their info . pictures with their great big ass and bingo wings out

Then they complain that people may know too much about them

 

[Ozzy]

pictures with their great big ass and bingo wings out

That was private just for you!

 

[SEODEV#338055]

Disclaimer: I don't use any Apple products

100% privacy on the internet doesn't exist

It comes down to levels of privacy, and I think it's good to have individual controls, but to turn off all tracking as default I don't agree with, users should be given clear choice upon install or the first use

Where I get annoyed is being shown totally irrelevant adverts, or in the worst cases Google shows disgusting pictures of ear wax - https://support.google.com/youtube/...-earwax-removal-add-and-i-can’t-get-rid-of-it

So I'm willing to allow some level of personal access, but not everything, medical records are a definite no-no

Being shown relevant ads can actually save you a lot of time and money

So there's a balance

 

[fisicx]

@SEO Developer - except the ads are rarely relevant. This has been proven by lots of testing. The algos aren’t very good. For example on my phone I’m seeing adverts for earth moving equipment in Colorado.

Consider also if you by a widget you then start seeing adverts for widgets. Which is just pointless

 

[Nico Albrecht]

With Apple's drive towards user privacy, their latest updates on iPhone/iOS and their Safari web browser by default block tracking pixels.

There is not such a thing as Apple cares about user privacy! They want you data and people blindly give it to them under the pretence they care about your privacy. With the latest shift to Big Sur and IOS 14 they now have even more access to our user data than ever before.

Good job of them blocking out 3rd parties but massively increasing their own data collection for data mining and PRISM.

There is plenty of documents available on the net how Apple actually tracks their users and collects more user data than ever before since Big Sur and IOS 14.

If Apple would care about user privacy they would actually fix their brutal flawed ghetto legacy patched iCloud, fix design flaws in Thunderbolt bypassing security encryption or high security concerns in Safari and the M1 processor micro code issues.

 

[Ozzy]

They want you data and people blindly give it to them under the pretence they care about your privacy. With the latest shift to Big Sur and IOS 14 they now have even more access to our user data than ever before.

This is true, they want to control all that data and then control access to it for a fee - their current and future revenue growth strategy. It's obviously by the way they amended their API end points for app developers for Apple to control advertising access points, location and activity data.

The issue though is the wider impact on business, especially smaller businesses, and how they can no longer reach markets via viable models.

except the ads are rarely relevant.

Err, I don't know. It's really helped boost my toilet seat collection.

 

[gpietersz]

I'm not too fussed what Facebook knows about me because I realise I'm their product. Kinda prefer to have targeted ads than random, thoughts stemmed from when one of Facebooks original developers said "If you're not paying for a product then you are the product" in the film Social Dilemma it resonated (an interesting watch on Netflix).

You are the first person I hace come across who has used that phrase who is OK with it!

You might not mind as a user, and you prefer it as a business owner - but I mind and so do a lot of others. Browser makers cannot keep everyone happy.

My experience of FB ads is that they are pretty badly targetted. I looked at what I am seeing now, and while there a some well targetted ones, a lot are massively badly targetted - the worst being local news for somewhere I have not heard of but which sounds like its in North America.

 

[ctrlbrk]

There is not such a thing as Apple cares about user privacy! They want you data and people blindly give it to them under the pretence they care about your privacy. With the latest shift to Big Sur and IOS 14 they now have even more access to our user data than ever before.

Good job of them blocking out 3rd parties but massively increasing their own data collection for data mining and PRISM.

This is true, they want to control all that data and then control access to it for a fee - their current and future revenue growth strategy. It's obviously by the way they amended their API end points for app developers for Apple to control advertising access points, location and activity data.

Are these comments inferences, or are they based on documented data that you can share?

 

[ctrlbrk]

My experience of FB ads is that they are pretty badly targetted. I looked at what I am seeing now, and while there a some well targetted ones, a lot are massively badly targetted - the worst being local news for somewhere I have not heard of but which sounds like its in North America.

Could the root cause of bad targeting be bad management, i.e. people who use these services (FB, Google Ads, etc.) that don't know how to properly target their demographics?

Not necessarily asking you gpietersz, a question for the thread.

 

[SEODEV#338055]

I don't understand

Why don't the ad companies let users choose which companies/subjects they do and do not like, then serve offer and discount ads from those companies/subjects

A simple questionnaire once in a while would do the trick

Instead I get served ads about certain companies that I dislike, distrust and will never use

 

[gpietersz]

@ctrlbrk I suspect it is, but I find it hard to believe as some of the targetting is so obviously bad that it means a high proportion of advertisers I see will be ones who are completely clueless and get it badly wrong.

There are other issues too. Ads so well targetted that they are pushing services I know about (MS Azure today) or services I already use (I used to see Bitbucket ads regularly for a long time.

Ome I near misses, but badly done all the same. The online course for Judaism GCSE I one saw, or the news site pushing an article about the new version of Windows today.

 

[fisicx]

Instead I get served ads about certain companies that I dislike, distrust and will never use

Because the algo is broken. The ad companies are buying flawed data from the likes of FB and Google.

I do a lot of Wordpress work for Scandinavian banks. This means I visit a lot of financial websites. Which means I get a lot of adverts for financial products. I’m not ever going to click on them. The whole system is broken. But they are never going to admit as such.

 

[ctrlbrk]

Thanks @gpietersz - a couple of thoughts here

• Access to Digital Marketing tools in the 2010-2020s is extremely easy. Some of these tools are free. Everyone is potentially a digital marketer, no matter how bad or inexperienced they may be, i.e. not everyone may have the necessary skillset to do it, but they do it anyway?
• Perhaps to measure the effectiveness of some of the marketing around I should remove all my privacy tools and tell Google that I do want to see ads based on my preferences, see what happens?

 

[SEODEV#338055]

@fisicx I spent the past 30 minutes researching videos on how to create custom Wordpress product category templates

At the end of the video YouTube served me an advert about "Elementor the world's leading website builder" so not only was the ad unrelated to my lifetime browsing history, but it's also circulating false claims

 

[Ozzy]

Are these comments inferences, or are they based on documented data that you can share?

Watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix, and then research some of Apple’s patents, for an added bonus you can research some interviews with whistleblowers and ex staff, and then you can piece the lot together with some commercial incentive applied.

 

[ctrlbrk]

Watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix, and then research some of Apple’s patents, for an added bonus you can research some interviews with whistleblowers and ex staff, and then you can piece the lot together with some commercial incentive applied.

I just watched The Social Dilemma, and that's 1.5 hours of my life I won't get back (thanks Ozzy ).

And I'm still none the wiser about Apple!

 

[Ozzy]

I found it extremely interesting, even if the side quest was a bit of waffle the explanation of the concept and the algorithm how it was meant to work and does work, that was fascinating.
Thinking that Ad revenue options disappear from Apps on the App Store, as well as Instagram and Facebook Ad retail customers, which drives app developers towards subscription revenue options (for Apps mainly). Apple takes a 30% of those subscriptions but gets zero cut of Ad revenue.

Looking at the Ad algorithm from the Social Dilemma and how social networks drive their income, looking at how Apple is pushing more and more control over their locked in users and controlling their data (to protect people’s privacy), it’s very profitable for Apple this way…which is becoming less of a hardware builder and more of a technology ecosystem developer.

 

[ctrlbrk]

I found it extremely interesting, even if the side quest was a bit of waffle the explanation of the concept and the algorithm how it was meant to work and does work, that was fascinating.

There was nothing new in this production though. All the topics have been explored before in other, proper, documentaries. Netflix produced this docudrama with a spin about how technology, AI and social media are turning into these forces of evil. How they are turning all users into sleepwalking products.

The reality is, Netflix, much like Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV and the evergrowing list of digital content providers are exactly that: in the business of providing content. When you have digital subscribers you've got to to keep churning out content, whether it's rehashed or not and that's my take on what they did.

All the deceit and sneakiness they talk about in the programme and perpetrated by social media is nothing other than good old marketing. The only difference is that now you can actually fine-tune it, which is a plus for the consumer. When it comes to consumers' psychological influence there's nothing new.

Thinking that Ad revenue options disappear from Apps on the App Store, as well as Instagram and Facebook Ad retail customers, which drives app developers towards subscription revenue options (for Apps mainly). Apple takes a 30% of those subscriptions but gets zero cut of Ad revenue.

Looking at the Ad algorithm from the Social Dilemma and how social networks drive their income, looking at how Apple is pushing more and more control over their locked in users and controlling their data (to protect people’s privacy), it’s very profitable for Apple this way…which is becoming less of a hardware builder and more of a technology ecosystem developer.

Well, the undertones of Netflix's programme: these are evil platforms. The implications are very ominous.

The simple reality: any of these companies are businesses (shock and horror) driven by CEOs with only one mission - increase value to their shareholders.

 

[Ozzy]

The simple reality: any of these companies are businesses (shock and horror) driven by CEOs with only one mission - increase value to their shareholders.

This is absolutely right, but that isn't what the general public perception is. The public as a whole expect to be able to use Google for free, they expect to be able to use Facebook for free, and so on and so on. Then are all up in arms when "their data" is used for whatever.

You are indeed absolutely right, and that is why I said earlier I don't care so much about my "privacy" when using free services. I respect I have a choice, if I pay for a service then I am buying a product but if it's free then I know I am the product and the provider sells me one way or another to finance said product.

 

[ctrlbrk]

This is absolutely right, but that isn't what the general public perception is. The public as a whole expect to be able to use Google for free

On the subject, I believe public opinion is split like so

• some think it's all free and they have no idea
  
• some just don't care about privacy
• some do care about privacy

What everyone should realise: remember Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco?

There is a reason why it's called Big Data.

 

[SEODEV#338055]

@ctrlbrk

Interesting evaluation of public sentiment

I fall into this category

Do care about privacy and am willing to trade some data in return for using software and services, such as UK Business Forums, as long as the adverts I'm served are RELEVANT to me

Why serve me ads that aren't relevant?

Waste of everybody's time

 

[ctrlbrk]

@ctrlbrk

Interesting evaluation of public sentiment

I fall into this category

Do care about privacy and am willing to trade some data in return for using software and services, such as UK Business Forums, as long as the adverts I'm served are RELEVANT to me

Yes, of course those categories I mentioned are not absolute - people may (and do) sit in between as well.

Why serve me ads that aren't relevant?

Waste of everybody's time

I don't have an answer to that - my accounts are set to 'no ad personalisation' so I don't know what would happen if I changed them, but at some point I will experiment.

 

[Paul Carmen]

One thing I haven't setup is Google Analytics to track FB advertising as @Paul Carmen mentions above, mainly because FB reports always served the purpose we needed at the time. Having said that, will probably need to look at this some more because most of my wife's business comes from Instagram, with orders via Facebook Commerce/Shop, completing on her site. Might explain why any other form of tracking like GA doesn't pick it up.

This isn't really possible in Google Analytics (well it is on a very basic level, but not in a way that will give you all the data you need). In effect you're trying to not use Google or Facebook to measure what's going on, as they, or 3rd parties they interact with have deliberately moved to stop you doing this well (Facebook was never great, but Google used to be), as they now anonymise data, keywords, sources etc. They are all happy to have the data, but not happy for you to have it, as they want their AI to spend your money for you!

What you need to do is to be able to link all sources/touchpoints that led up to conversions and capture as much info as possible from the other data sources, but not rely on the data sources themselves for your entire attribution and measurement. This requires your own tracking code and systems to glue all your conversions together (that can be form fills, ecommerce transactions, calls, texts etc depending on the type of site). This is possible, but needs quite a bit of work to get right and can't be done in Google, as it would be against their terms of service.

As others on here have said, people talk about companies having their data, but do nothing to minimise their footprint and have joke passwords that expose their own data. The iOS 14.5 change is an unusual one, as you have to opt in to sharing data, about 5% are doing this. Normally you have to opt out (e.g. cookies policies) and only 5-10% do this. You can draw your own conclusions about what's happening there...

If we continue down the current route of anonymisation, and worse have to opt in to everything, the web is going to be pretty sorry for itself. Targeted adverts will get much worse, paid search results will get worse, you will have to make many more intrusive choices every time you do something.

 

[Paul Carmen]

@ctrlbrk I suspect it is, but I find it hard to believe as some of the targetting is so obviously bad that it means a high proportion of advertisers I see will be ones who are completely clueless and get it badly wrong.

There are other issues too. Ads so well targetted that they are pushing services I know about (MS Azure today) or services I already use (I used to see Bitbucket ads regularly for a long time.

Ome I near misses, but badly done all the same. The online course for Judaism GCSE I one saw, or the news site pushing an article about the new version of Windows today.

This is all about the ads setup, what you're seeing obviously depends on where you interacted; e.g. Google ads following you around the web are cookie based retargeting normally. The laughable ones that follow you around after you buy are down to very poor retargeting setup; e.g. they should be excluding previous website conversions, or only showing add on type products that you might be interested in because you bought the main product... the non UK relevant ads should be excluding anywhere outside their geo target area...

The Facebook stuff is often because people think their ads work well, in that they've improved them from when they launched, but haven't really tested or optimised them enough and they then rely on Facebook data. So they do work, but could work way better, usually the demographic data or audience is set too broadly; e.g. its showing if you're a man, over 30, and you own a home. Now that's an audience, and its better than showing to all, but its still pretty broad...

This problem is, this stuff is difficult to do really well. It needs proper tracking to look at the Google, Bing, Facebook data, and while you can get much better results by optimising it for 1-2 months, you get far better results if you optimise it indefinitely. You are then always working on ROI, as you deal with bid changes, competitor changes, platform changes, market changes, seasonality etc.

 

[gpietersz]

If we continue down the current route of anonymisation, and worse have to opt in to everything, the web is going to be pretty sorry for itself. Targeted adverts will get much worse, paid search results will get worse, you will have to make many more intrusive choices every time you do something.

I am far from convinced it will be worse. The web was in some ways better before we had all that.

I can see a lot there that will be bad for particular businesses, but I am inclined to think it would be better for users.

Advertisers might have to change how they target their ads (placement on relevant pages, narrow keywords in search etc.) but if its not as effective rates will fall so they will be no worse off.

 

[ctrlbrk]

Android and Apple are the remaining dominant mobile platforms, but Android has a bigger share.

Once again, what's the impact of what Apple has done here? Does anyone have hard numbers that they can provide?

 

[Paul Carmen]

Advertisers might have to change how they target their ads (placement on relevant pages, narrow keywords in search etc.) but if its not as effective rates will fall so they will be no worse off.

That's the problem though, 99% of people can't do what you say, unless you have the buying power and budget to work in this way, as the big platforms control the placement, not the content provider/sites. Even the biggest websites tend to show Google display ads now, with less and less doing their own thing or running homepage/category takeover type ads.

With PPC keywords, it's even worse. Google used to show only what customers searched for using exact match, not now, its behaving more like phrase match. Phase match used to only show relevant ads when the actual phrase was included in the search terms, this now behaves supposedly like broad match modifier, although we regularly see examples that are too broad for even this description.

The trend here is to then hand this control over to the platforms (notionally because their AI does a better job, it doesn't), in reality you have to build hugely complex campaigns with loads of granularity and tonnes of negative keywords, and keep optimising. Now this is still the best way to do it, and means that Google doesn't spend your entire budget all the time and you can get real data and learn. However, its beyond many SMEs time and budget to do this now, so they let Google AI run their campaigns. Google says look AI is working better and better, less people want manual setup, lets make this the default method, people want more AI...

The big corporates are running the agenda, the platforms are basically fighting each other and calling the shots, with an absence of real regulation or government intervention/legislation, as they don't actually understand it.

The big players are trying to grab share and control/keep their audience on their ecosystem. Sometimes this works, sometimes not (e.g. Google AMP), but they alone have the resources to do this. Apple's changes make Facebook's situation and platforms worse, but they've chosen to do it, privacy laws and regulation hasn't made them do it (or it would have ben an opt out). It's got to the point that you can't login/register to many sites on iOS mobile without sharing data/security login Info with iCloud if you're using Safari, as if you don't the site freezes...

While I agree with you that it should be better, and the web isn't great as the wild west, the direction now is making it worse, most people just ignore/shut the cookie popup as they know the site needs it to function, so its just become an intrusion. The problem that needs addressing is the biggest corporations in the world should not be making the decisions and regulating themselves.

 

[SEODEV#338055]

In effect you're trying to not use Google or Facebook to measure what's going on, as they, or 3rd parties they interact with have deliberately moved to stop you doing this well (Facebook was never great, but Google used to be), as they now anonymise data, keywords, sources etc.

If you want to see keywords from google.co.uk, connect Google Search Console with Google Analytics

 

[fisicx]

If you want to see keywords from google.co.uk, connect Google Search Console with Google Analytics

And you get a subset of the keyword data. I rank for and get traffic for loads of keywords not listed in search console.