New Website SEO Case Study:
0 to 52K Impressions in 6 Months
This new website SEO case study follows musickanheal.com, a piano-learning and music-therapy app launched into a market owned by established brands. Six months on it records 52,000 impressions and an average position of 9.6. Every figure below is read from the client’s own Google Search Console.
GOOGLE SEARCH CONSOLE // 6-MONTH WINDOW ENDING 17 AUG 2026
Where This New Website SEO Case Study Started
MusicKanHeal teaches piano without sheet music using the Nashville Number System, and pairs it with guided healing audio. It is a genuinely good product in a category dominated by well-funded, well-known apps.
It was also a brand-new domain, which in search terms means no history, no backlinks, and no reason for Google to trust it. On 18 April 2026 the site recorded 0 clicks and 2 impressions for the entire day. That is the honest baseline any new website SEO case study should start from, and it is where most owners give up.
The obvious keywords were unwinnable. Competing head-on for terms like “learn piano app” against brands with years of authority and real ad budgets would have produced nothing for a very long time.
Rank Beside the Competition, Not Against It
The turning point in this new website SEO case study was refusing to fight for head terms. Instead we went after comparison queries — the searches people run when they are already close to choosing, and are weighing two named products against each other.
Those queries are far less contested, and they let an unknown app appear in a conversation buyers are already having. Six months in, they are the site’s three biggest sources of visibility:
| Top query | Clicks | Impressions |
|---|---|---|
| flowkey vs simply piano | 8 | 753 |
| flowkey vs skoove | 6 | 122 |
| skoove vs flowkey | 5 | 185 |
Note what these have in common: none of them mention the client. A site with no authority earned its visibility by being genuinely useful to people comparing other products, then introducing itself as a third option. That is the mechanism behind this new website SEO case study, and it works precisely because it does not require authority you have not earned yet.
What We Actually Built and Wrote
Four workstreams sit behind this new website SEO case study. The content volume gets the attention, but the build quality underneath it is what let the content rank at all.
- 01Custom WordPress build, hand-codedThe site was built as custom HTML inside WordPress rather than assembled from a page-builder template, with animations and original imagery throughout. Hand-coded markup means clean, lightweight pages instead of the nested div soup builders generate.
- 0240+ articles, written by peopleEvery article was human-written and scores 0% on Quillbot’s AI detector. For a product in the health and wellbeing space — where Google applies extra scrutiny to who is writing and why — that was a deliberate choice, not a marketing line.
- 03On-page SEO across every pageTitles, meta descriptions, heading structure, internal linking and schema, applied consistently rather than to a handful of priority pages. Comparison articles were interlinked so authority earned by one page passes to the others.
- 04Social media management and paid adsWe also run the brand’s social channels and its advertising. Those channels are not what produced the Search Console numbers above — organic search did — but they build the brand recognition that makes people click a name they have seen before.
On the AI-detector score: we quote the 0% because the client asked for human writing and got it. We would not lean on detector scores as proof of quality — they produce false positives on perfectly good human writing, and no detector is authoritative. The writing standing up over six months is the better evidence.
New Website SEO Case Study Results: Six Months In
In a new website SEO case study the growth curve matters more than the totals. For roughly the first three months, almost nothing happened — a few impressions a day, clicks in single figures. Movement began around month three, then climbed steadily from June onward, and the last two months are the site’s strongest by a wide margin.
That shape is normal, and it is the single most useful thing in this new website SEO case study for anyone deciding whether to start. The work compounds quietly before it surfaces. Judging SEO at week six tells you nothing except that six weeks have passed.
The Number We Are Not Happy With
One number in this new website SEO case study is genuinely disappointing: the click-through rate is 0.7%. At an average position of 9.6 you would normally expect somewhere closer to 1.5–2%. We are publishing it anyway, because a case study that reports only its good numbers is worth nothing to you.
Two things explain it. The site is winning impressions on competitive comparison queries where it is often the least familiar name on the page, and buyers gravitate to brands they recognise. And the titles and meta descriptions have not yet been rewritten for click appeal — the first six months were spent earning visibility at all.
That makes the next phase obvious: convert existing impressions rather than chase new ones. Fifty-two thousand impressions at 0.7% is a lot of demand already reaching the page and choosing something else. Fixing that is cheaper than winning the visibility was.
What this does not prove: six months of growth on one site is not a guarantee for yours. Different market, different competition, different starting authority. What it does show is the shape of the curve and the method behind it — which is the part worth borrowing.
New Website SEO Case Study: Common Questions
On this project the first three months produced almost nothing — a handful of impressions a day. Meaningful movement started around month three, and by month six the site was recording 52,000 impressions and 356 clicks at an average position of 9.6. That shape is normal for a new domain: work compounds quietly before it shows, so judging SEO at week six tells you nothing useful.
Because impressions have grown faster than clicks. At an average position of 9.6 you would normally expect closer to 1.5–2%. The site is winning visibility on competitive comparison queries but is often the least familiar brand on the results page, and the titles and meta descriptions have not yet been rewritten for click appeal. That is the next phase of work, and we publish the figure rather than hide it.
We did not use it here. All 40+ articles were written by people and score 0% on Quillbot’s AI detector. Detectors are imperfect and we do not treat them as proof of quality, but for a site in the health and wellbeing space, where Google applies extra scrutiny, we would rather the writing genuinely be human than argue about a score.
A new site has no chance against established brands on head terms. Comparison queries like flowkey vs simply piano are searched by people already close to a decision, they are far less contested, and they let an unknown product appear in the conversation next to the brands buyers already know. Those three comparison queries drove the largest share of impressions in the first six months.
Yes. Every number on this page is read directly from the client’s own Google Search Console over a six-month window, and we will walk through the live dashboard with you on a call rather than asking you to take a screenshot on trust.
Launching Something New
Into a Crowded Market?
If you are starting from zero authority against established competitors, as this new website SEO case study did, tell us the market. We will tell you which queries are realistically winnable in your first six months — and which ones are not worth your money yet.