EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Wednesday, 23 September 2026

built 24 Sep 2026, 06:09 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
85
74 out / 11 in
Leads
37
new today
Reached
21
70 answered − 37 vm, 12 short
Qualified
4
good status
Booked
2
moved to 1.4
Messages
98
SMS
Follow-up
52
11 reached, 28 vm, 11 short, 2 missed
Lead→Booked
5.4%
daily rate

Day timeline bar height = call length · grey = no answer · WhatsApp

070911131517192123
Sara
Thal Vry
07:450:00
outgoing no answer
Prawakaran Tamilchelam
10:000:46
outgoing answered
checklist7/25
Louie
10:213:25
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Abel Wilson
10:250:27
outgoing voicemail
Niteesh Roy Godi
10:270:50
outgoing no speech
Niteesh Roy Godi
10:280:00
outgoing no answer
2894661244
10:282:45
incoming answered
Emmanuel
10:440:00
outgoing no answer
Xi Wang
10:490:00
outgoing no answer
Prince Pal
11:280:53
outgoing voicemail
Ria
13:240:46
outgoing voicemail
Hrutvik Dhaigude
13:260:06
outgoing too short
Daniel Carlos
13:310:06
outgoing too short
Christian G Doekpar
13:361:28
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Vijay Surya
13:420:30
outgoing voicemail
Inderpal Sandhu
14:020:04
outgoing too short
Louie
16:050:38
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Reine
Sukhpreet Singh
09:171:47
outgoing answered
checklist6/24
Shah Bilal
09:480:00
outgoing no answer
Samarpan Thapa
09:491:11
outgoing voicemail
Parth Patel
09:500:32
outgoing voicemail
Darshita Bhatt
09:510:12
outgoing voicemail
Arpan Ghimire
09:520:26
outgoing voicemail
Abdullah Fayiz Mohamed
09:530:17
outgoing voicemail
2892990235
09:590:00
incoming no answer
Imrul Ahmed Zidan
10:230:20
outgoing no speech
Imrul Ahmed Zidan
10:230:20
outgoing no speech
Yassine Aissaoui
10:290:35
outgoing voicemail
Sudarshan Ramanujam
10:316:40
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Yassine Aissaoui
10:390:15
outgoing voicemail
David Nwannukwu
10:400:38
outgoing voicemail
Arshdeep Singh
10:410:30
outgoing voicemail
Prerak Azad
10:420:27
outgoing voicemail
Febin Thankachen
10:437:51
outgoing answered
checklist16/26
Dhairya Patel
11:017:15
outgoing answered
checklist16/26
2892990235
11:110:00
incoming no answer
Tomás Ortega G.
11:140:24
outgoing voicemail
Allwyn J.
11:190:23
outgoing voicemail
2892990235
11:190:00
incoming no answer
2892990235
11:190:00
incoming no answer
2892990235
11:211:00
incoming answered
Manjot Gill
11:271:09
outgoing voicemail
Damey Akins
11:300:28
outgoing voicemail
Jashanpreet Singh
11:300:12
outgoing voicemail
Jaison Joseph
11:310:43
outgoing voicemail
Abhishek Macwan
11:330:31
outgoing voicemail
Akash Tharindu
11:350:24
outgoing voicemail
Govind Pradeep
11:530:31
outgoing voicemail
Faisal Sharif
11:540:26
outgoing voicemail
Jitendra Shrivastav
11:580:27
outgoing voicemail
Shah Bilal
12:200:00
outgoing no answer
+14375007896
12:227:44
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
Sumith Anchan
12:330:24
outgoing voicemail
Frank Essel Amoah
12:351:14
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
Gurjinder Singh
12:360:03
outgoing too short
Febin Thankachen
12:370:07
outgoing too short
Akash Tharindu
13:020:00
incoming no answer
2892990235
13:130:00
incoming no answer
Drumil Tejani
13:570:00
outgoing no answer
Francisco
13:580:29
outgoing voicemail
Riya
2894795739
08:370:00
incoming no answer
2894795739
13:200:00
incoming no answer
Mohammed Shadaab Siddiqui
16:2113:33
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
Karanpal Singh
17:280:11
outgoing voicemail
Imrul Ahmed Zidan
17:300:09
outgoing too short
Viktor Lukin
17:320:08
outgoing too short
Nakul Uppal
17:500:10
outgoing voicemail
Monil Agrawal
18:040:18
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Shrey Jain
18:060:09
outgoing too short
Navin Rawat
18:160:10
outgoing voicemail
Anas Afridi
18:200:07
outgoing too short
Karthik Prasad
18:220:11
outgoing voicemail
Jasmine Rauli
18:260:09
outgoing too short
Karan Nagpal
18:290:05
outgoing too short
Meet Patel
18:350:10
outgoing voicemail
𝑀𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓃
18:409:37
outgoing answered
checklist23/26
Manzar Bari
18:540:08
outgoing too short
Aditya Adhikari
18:570:41
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
2894795739
19:1327:03
incoming answered
Shubendu Sarkar
19:420:11
outgoing voicemail
Khac Thanh Trung Dinh
19:560:24
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Akshaykumar Patel
19:571:30
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Esosa Omwanghe
20:060:54
outgoing answered
checklist3/24
Unknown Caller
20:119:28
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Rohin R
20:230:10
outgoing voicemail
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 37 total

Landing-PGWP
15
Meta-Form-PGWP
9
Second Job Morocco
3
Second Job Tunisia
3
Second-Job
3
Web-Organic
3
Secon Job Overseas
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 19 of 37 leads called

Fastest
0 min
Riya Kathuria 17:00–21:00
called outside shift · 114 min on the clock
Slowest
170 min
Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00
511 min on the clock
median 108 min · 18 leads never called

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 6 17 5 29.4% 1 1 16.7%
Reine Francis 10 43 7 16.3% 3 1 10.0%
Riya Kathuria 4 25 9 36.0% 0 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
37
Contacted
45
Qualified
4
Consultations
2

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

18:00–20:00 best connect
50/125
40.0%
16:00–18:00
26/66
39.4%
20:00–21:00
24/61
39.3%
12:00–14:00
36/92
39.1%
14:00–16:00
3/9
33.3%
08:00–10:00
35/155
22.6%
10:00–12:00 worst
71/316
22.5%
average 29.7% over 824 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
7
Qualified
4
In progress (contacted)
14
New / no activity
12

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 17 9:02 8:19:53 07:45 16:05 129
Reine Francis 43 33:31 4:40:16 09:17 13:58 102
Riya Kathuria 25 1:03:28 11:46:14 08:37 20:23 33
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 5

Leads and first call 18 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
Fatine Belkhammar 06:30 — — no call —
Soumaya Mtaouaa 08:02 — — no call —
Mhimdi Aymen 08:12 — Constantine no call —
Gawdy Kome 09:29 — Constantine no call —
Hassna Faridi 11:39 — — no call —
Zhicheng Zhen 11:50 — — no call —
Gaurav 12:14 — Sara Habchi no call —
Oussama El bakri 12:36 — — no call —
Awatef Zorgani 17:50 — — no call —
Olamilekan Adedeji 19:24 — Constantine no call —
Mahroof Adeniran 19:35 — Constantine no call —
Jaydee Paulo 20:15 — — no call —
G!\\ 𓅓 20:51 — — no call —
Jay Shukla 22:15 — — no call —
Farhan Sayed 22:18 — — no call —
KUNCHERIA Tom 22:55 — — no call —
Dhairya M k ! 23:17 — — no call —
Dhairya Kesarola 23:23 — — no call —
Xi Wang 02:18 10:49 (0:00) Sara Habchi 170 min —
Emmanuel 01:09 10:44 (0:00) Sara Habchi 164 min —
Niteesh Roy Godi 00:01 10:27 (0:50) Sara Habchi 147 min no speech
Drumil Tejani 11:52 13:57 (0:00) Reine Francis 125 min —
Arpan Ghimire 04:32 09:52 (0:26) Reine Francis 113 min voicemail
Abdullah Fayiz Mohamed 04:32 09:53 (0:17) Reine Francis 113 min voicemail
Darshita Bhatt 04:32 09:51 (0:12) Reine Francis 112 min voicemail
Parth Patel 04:32 09:50 (0:32) Reine Francis 111 min voicemail
Samarpan Thapa 04:32 09:49 (1:11) Reine Francis 109 min voicemail
Shah Bilal 04:32 09:48 (0:00) Reine Francis 108 min —
Sukhpreet Singh 04:32 09:17 (1:47) Reine Francis 78 min 6/24
Dhairya Patel 09:46 11:01 (7:15) Reine Francis 75 min 16/26
𝑀𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓃 17:47 18:40 (9:37) Riya Kathuria 53 min 23/26
Prince Pal 10:37 11:28 (0:53) Sara Habchi 51 min voicemail
Manzar Bari 18:08 18:54 (0:08) Riya Kathuria 46 min —
Francisco 13:23 13:58 (0:29) Reine Francis 35 min voicemail
Aditya Adhikari 18:32 18:57 (0:41) Riya Kathuria 25 min 6/26
Mohammed Shadaab Siddiqui 14:26 16:21 (13:33) Riya Kathuria off-shift 21/26
Esosa Omwanghe 14:56 20:06 (0:54) Sara Habchi off-shift 3/24

Booked consultations 2 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Bhavesh Bharti Meta-Form-PGWP Sara Habchi 20 Jun 23:40 14:12
Mohaned Mohamed Meta-Form-PGWP Reine Francis 16 Sep 23:23 17:07

SMS 81 sent · 17 received · 36 contacts

Reply rate
29.4%
10 of 34 conversations
Median reply
1 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 18 2 7 5 0 0.0%
Reine Francis 57 13 27 27 10 37.0%
Riya Kathuria 6 2 5 2 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 10 conversations where the client wrote last

Niteesh Roy Godi 10:06 · Sara Habchi 833 min
Morning 11:30 works for me
Prince Pal 11:32 · Sara Habchi 748 min
can I call you in evening please
Nakul Uppal 12:41 · Riya Kathuria 679 min
I was expecting your call yesterday. Can You call today anytime after 5
Gaurav 12:46 · Reine Francis 674 min
I'm free tomorrow evening
Esosa Omwanghe 15:17 · Reine Francis 522 min
Morning between 9 and 11AM
Manzar Bari 18:09 · Reine Francis 351 min
Evening
Kenneth Gerard Enriquez 18:49 · Riya Kathuria 310 min
Hi sorry to have missed your calls. Let me ask you, do you have employers under RCIP or AIP who can provide me with an L
Jaydee Paulo 20:16 · Reine Francis 224 min
Wvening 6 onwards
G!\\ 𓅓 20:52 · Reine Francis 188 min
Evening
Jay Shukla 22:16 · Reine Francis 104 min
Morning

WhatsApp calls 24 calls · 16 out / 8 in · 1:11:49 talk

2 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 16 10 6 16 1:03:52 14/16
Reine Francis 5 3 2 2 0:05 1/2
Riya Kathuria 3 3 0 3 7:52 0/3
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
6 conversations not matched to a lead — the contact is saved in the phone book, so WhatsApp shows a name instead of a number

WhatsApp call reviews 7 of 21 conversations

Sara Habchi John 07:00 · 0:17 18/26

What was good

The caller quickly identified the client's situation and clearly explained the limitations due to expiring permits, saying, "due to the very limited time frame... we wouldn't be able to assist." They addressed the client's questions about study permits and work options thoroughly within a short call.

What went wrong

The caller did not offer a next step or consultation, nor did they confirm contact details or summarize agreements. Also, there was no mention of the RCIC licence to build trust. These omissions reduce the chance of re-engagement despite the clear explanation.
Sara Habchi Sarah 07:18 · 8:51 26/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional consultation, confirming detailed client information and clearly explaining the immigration pathways and next steps. They effectively handled objections and offered a paid consultation with clear instructions on booking and payment. The conversation was well-structured and informative throughout.

What went wrong

There were no significant issues in this call. The caller maintained compliance and professionalism, and no illegal promises were made. The client was left well-informed and with clear options to proceed.
Sara Habchi Bhagwan 08:58 · 11:04 22/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, confirming the lead's name and details thoroughly. She assessed eligibility well and presented relevant programs, explaining steps and timelines clearly. The consultation offer was made professionally with no illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Also, no specific date or time for the consultation was locked during the call, missing an opportunity to secure a commitment.
Sara Habchi Nitish 10:31 · 11:57 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation with Nitish, gathering comprehensive information about his background and goals. They clearly explained the immigration pathways and services available, including linking with employers and language training, and offered a next step with a paid consultation. The caller handled objections well and avoided any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details or summarize the agreements at the end of the call. These omissions could reduce the chance of securing the booking and ensuring clarity for the lead.
Sara Habchi Ali 11:00 · 20:52 10/26

What was good

The caller identified themselves clearly as a case manager with Evernorth and confirmed the lead's name as Ali. They gathered important information about Ali's current immigration status, education, and language test history, showing good engagement and information gathering.

What went wrong

The caller repeatedly asked the same questions without progressing the conversation or clarifying the lead's immigration goals. There was no presentation of programs, no explanation of next steps, and no attempt to book a consultation or confirm contact details. The call lacked structure and did not advance towards closing or offering services.
Riya Kathuria Khushdeep 16:11 · 6:03 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully scheduled a consultation and confirmed payment details, locking in a specific date and time. They also confirmed contact methods clearly, ensuring the client knows how the meeting will be conducted.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any client information or discuss immigration goals. There was no assessment or explanation of services, missing key sales opportunities.
Sara Habchi Manmeet 16:31 · 8:34 17/26

What was good

The caller engaged in a thorough and informative conversation with Manmeet, confirming key details such as immigration status, education, and language proficiency. They clearly explained relevant programs and next steps, including the paid consultation offer, which shows good sales process adherence.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to mention the RCIC license and past successful cases, which could build trust. They also did not handle common objections or confirm contact details and consultation scheduling, which are important for closing the sale and ensuring follow-up.

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 14:03 (967 min ago) offline
Riya Kathuria 05:53 (17 min ago) running
Sara Habchi 06:02 (7 min ago) running
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 55 of 21 live conversations

Reine Francis — 09:17 · 1:47 6/24

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, saying 'I'm Ren from Evernorth.' They offered to send details via WhatsApp and arranged to schedule a follow-up call, showing flexibility to the lead's situation.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any immigration-related information, missing key qualification steps. They also failed to lock a specific date and time for the next call and did not summarize any agreements at the end, which weakens the call's effectiveness.
Reine Francis — 09:49 · 1:11 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond at their convenience. The message included a call to action with options to reply by message or WhatsApp, which is helpful for engagement.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification could be done. The voicemail could have been slightly more personalized by mentioning the lead's name if known to increase connection.
Reine Francis — 09:50 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond at their convenience. This message provides the lead with a clear next step by asking for their preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification could take place. Leaving a voicemail is fine, but no further action was taken during this call to advance the lead.
Reine Francis — 09:51 · 0:12 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail, avoiding unnecessary talk to a non-responsive line.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.
Reine Francis Arpan 09:52 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have included a brief mention of next steps or benefits to encourage a callback.
Reine Francis — 09:53 · 0:17 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human answer. The system message was clear and professional.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or leave contact information.
Sara Habchi Prawakaran 10:00 · 0:46 7/25

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and identified the company, saying, "My name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth." She also handled the lead's objection professionally when the lead said they were still considering their plans, responding with understanding.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any detailed information such as citizenship, immigration status, or eligibility, nor did she present any program or explain next steps. No consultation was offered or scheduled, and no contact details were confirmed. The call was very brief and did not advance the sales process beyond acknowledging the lead's current status.
Sara Habchi Louis 10:21 · 3:25 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and named the company, establishing credibility by mentioning the RCIC license. She also successfully scheduled a specific callback time and confirmed the lead's contact details, showing good call control and organization.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as the lead's immigration status, goals, and background details. No eligibility assessment or program presentation was done, and no next steps like a paid consultation were offered. The call ended prematurely without summarizing agreements or advancing the sales process.
Reine Francis — 10:23 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not develop into a conversation, so no positive selling actions were possible.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage or introduce themselves, and the call ended after only a few seconds of silence and repeated 'Hello?' without any interaction.
Reine Francis — 10:23 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not develop into a conversation, so no positive sales actions were possible.

What went wrong

The call ended after only a brief greeting with no engagement or information gathering, missing all opportunities to connect with the lead.
Sara Habchi Able Lusin 10:25 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's name and the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation took place, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was cut off and did not include a callback number or next steps, which could reduce the chance of a response.
Sara Habchi — 10:27 · 0:50 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to engage the lead by greeting and introducing herself as Sarah, showing politeness by asking how the lead was doing.

What went wrong

The call was plagued by poor connection issues, with repeated 'Hello?' and silence, preventing any meaningful conversation or information exchange.
Reine Francis Etienne 10:29 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company, which is good for personal connection.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred, so no selling or qualification could be done. The message was brief and did not offer a next step or confirm contact details, which could improve callback chances.
Reine Francis Francis 10:31 · 6:40 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly and named the company, establishing credibility by mentioning the RCI-T licensed consultant and CEO involvement. He patiently handled the lead's hesitation with the 'I'll think about it' objection and thoroughly explained the consultation process and next steps, including the consultation fee and what it entails.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's citizenship, immigration status, goals, age, education, language proficiency, or work experience, missing key qualification steps. No specific program was presented or eligibility assessed, and no contact details were confirmed or a consultation date locked. The call ended without summarizing agreements or confirming follow-up details, which could reduce conversion chances.
Reine Francis — 10:39 · 0:15 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call went to voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation.

What went wrong

No message was left, so the opportunity to engage the lead was missed.
Reine Francis — 10:40 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond by message or WhatsApp to schedule a call.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification could be done. The message could have included a more specific call to action or a mention of the next steps to encourage a callback.
Reine Francis — 10:41 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message could have included a callback number to facilitate easier response.
Reine Francis — 10:42 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback with a preferred time.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead during this call.
Reine Francis Ren 10:43 · 7:51 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name early on. They thoroughly explained the consultation process, eligibility assessment, and relevant immigration programs, and successfully booked a specific consultation date and time with clear instructions.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking key personal details such as citizenship, immigration goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not summarize the agreements at the end of the call, which would help reinforce the next steps and client understanding.
Reine Francis — 11:01 · 7:15 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's current immigration status and explaining the next steps thoroughly. They handled the 'I'll think about it' objection well by offering to send information and scheduling a follow-up call, maintaining engagement.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking for the lead's name, citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, and detailed work experience, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not lock in a specific consultation date or summarize agreements at the end, which could improve call closure and commitment.
Reine Francis Thomas 11:14 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Thomas, inviting him to book a consultation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather client information, so no selling or qualification occurred.
Reine Francis Ellen 11:19 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. This message effectively invites the lead to confirm their interest in booking a consultation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification could be done. The message could be improved by including a callback number or next steps for the lead to follow up.
Reine Francis — 11:27 · 1:09 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and referencing a previous discussion. They encouraged the lead to respond via message or WhatsApp to book the appointment, which is appropriate for a follow-up.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity for a live conversation, so no direct selling or qualification could occur. The voicemail could have been slightly more concise to respect the lead's time, but overall it was acceptable.
Sara Habchi Prince 11:28 · 0:53 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, and mentioned the reason for calling related to PR services. The message was polite and professional, addressing the lead by name and inviting them to stay on the line or leave a message.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and no message was left beyond the initial greeting, so no opportunity to engage or advance the sales process was utilized. It would be better to leave a brief message encouraging the lead to call back or offering a next step to increase chances of contact.
Reine Francis — 11:30 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, reminding the lead about the consultation booking and requesting a response.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company clearly in the voicemail, which could improve professionalism and clarity.
Reine Francis — 11:30 · 0:12 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly stated their name and company, "This is Ren Simbirer at Evernorth."

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or engagement occurred. The message was very brief and did not leave much information or a clear call to action.
Reine Francis — 11:31 · 0:43 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and referenced the previous discussion, showing good follow-up intent.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail message, so no live conversation occurred. No opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was present.
Reine Francis — 11:33 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail message, saying, "This is Fran Timber at EverNorth."

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail, so no live interaction occurred. The message left was brief and did not include any immigration-specific details or a clear next step for the lead to follow up on.
Reine Francis — 11:35 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the line was not answered and reached a voicemail that was not initialized. They did not leave a message, which is appropriate given the situation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with a lead or present any information, so no errors were made in this call.
Reine Francis — 11:53 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback if the lead is still interested.

What went wrong

No issues with the call as it was a voicemail. The message was concise and professional, so nothing went wrong here.
Reine Francis Fikson 11:54 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message was concise and invited the lead to respond if interested, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification occurred. The caller did not leave specific contact details or next steps beyond asking for a callback, which could improve future voicemails.
Reine Francis — 11:58 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond if interested.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage the lead in conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification occurred.
Reine Francis — 12:22 · 7:44 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and options available, addressing the lead's specific situation and eligibility points. They handled the lead's hesitation well by offering to send the agreement and questionnaire for review, showing flexibility and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, which is important for establishing trust. They also did not ask for the lead's name or confirm a specific appointment date and time, missing opportunities to strengthen engagement and commitment.
Reine Francis — 12:33 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide callback information.
Reine Francis Frank 12:35 · 1:14 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and addressed the lead by name, establishing rapport. They effectively moved the conversation toward scheduling the consultation, locking in a preferred day and confirming the next step.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather key client information such as immigration status, goals, and eligibility, which are crucial for tailoring the service. Also, no contact details were confirmed, and no summary of the agreements was provided at the end, which would improve clarity and commitment.
Sara Habchi Ria 13:24 · 0:46 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and left a message for the lead named Ria. The message was polite and to the point, mentioning the PR application decision.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather any client information. The caller did not leave a detailed message or next steps, which could have improved the chance of a callback.
Sara Habchi Christian 13:36 · 1:28 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, which helped maintain a personal connection. She confirmed the lead's IELTS test date and successfully locked a follow-up date after the test, showing good call control.

What went wrong

The call lacked depth in gathering essential information such as citizenship, immigration status, goals, and work experience, which are critical for assessing eligibility. There was no discussion of next steps or consultation offers, and no summary of agreements, making the call feel incomplete and transactional rather than consultative.
Sara Habchi Vijay 13:42 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the situation politely.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not attempt to prompt immediate action or offer a next step explicitly.
Reine Francis Francisco 13:58 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, mentioning the lead's name and the reason for the call. The message included a call to action, inviting the lead to respond by message or WhatsApp with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction or sales steps could be performed. The message was brief and did not include a specific next step like booking a consultation, which could improve callback rates.
Sara Habchi Louis 16:05 · 0:38 5/26

What was good

The caller successfully rescheduled the call for a specific date and time, confirming "4 p.m. is good." The caller also used the lead's name, Louis, which helps personalize the interaction.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and no summary or confirmation of contact details occurred. The call was very brief and lacked any substantive engagement.
Riya Kathuria Muhammad 16:21 · 13:33 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, gathering detailed information about Muhammad's profile and clearly explaining the services and next steps. The caller effectively presented the licensed consultant's involvement and the consultation process, including fees and follow-up meetings, which shows good transparency and compliance.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' and did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation. Additionally, the call ended without summarizing the agreements, which could help reinforce the lead's commitment.
Riya Kathuria — 17:28 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as reaching a voicemail service.

What went wrong

No message was left, so there was no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.
Riya Kathuria — 17:50 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly forwarded to voicemail as the lead was unavailable. No conversation took place, so no errors were made in this brief interaction.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information for a callback.
Riya Kathuria Monil 18:04 · 0:18 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Ria from Evernorth,' and addressed the lead by name, showing familiarity. The tone was polite and respectful of the lead's current busyness.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond a quick check-in; no qualifying questions or information gathering occurred. There was no attempt to discuss immigration goals, assess eligibility, or offer next steps, which missed a key opportunity to engage the lead further.
Riya Kathuria — 18:16 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail as indicated by the greeting. No live conversation took place, so no selling was attempted.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.
Riya Kathuria — 18:22 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly, allowing the lead to leave a message if desired.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so the opportunity to engage the lead was missed.
Riya Kathuria — 18:35 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead.
Riya Kathuria manan 18:40 · 9:37 23/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and thoroughly gathered relevant client information such as age, education, work permit status, and work experience. She explained the PR process and services in detail, including the consultation structure and fees, and handled the lead's hesitation professionally by offering to send a summary and follow up.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation despite discussing availability, which could reduce conversion chances. Also, the 'I'll do it myself' objection was not addressed, though it may not have come up. Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues.
Riya Kathuria Yohana 18:57 · 0:41 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name, establishing a basic connection. They successfully arranged a specific callback time, saying 'I'll call you in an hour then,' which keeps the engagement active.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not explore any client details such as immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing key qualification steps. No next steps like offering a paid consultation or confirming contact details were discussed, limiting progress toward conversion.
Riya Kathuria — 19:42 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached a voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no information was provided to the lead or next steps suggested.
Riya Kathuria — 19:56 · 0:24 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly at the start, saying, "My name is Ria, from Evernorth Immigration." She was polite and accepted the lead's refusal without argument.

What went wrong

The caller did not attempt to engage the lead beyond the introduction and did not ask any qualifying questions or offer any information about the services. There was no effort to handle the objection or offer a next step, resulting in a very short and unproductive call.
Riya Kathuria — 19:57 · 1:30 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, establishing identity early in the call. She effectively handled the 'I'll think about it' objection and secured a follow-up call date, showing persistence and clear next steps.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather essential client information such as name, immigration status, and goals, which are critical for assessing eligibility. There was no discussion of programs, steps, or consultation offers, limiting the call's effectiveness as a sales opportunity.
Riya Kathuria — 20:06 · 0:54 3/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly at the start, saying, "my name is Ria, from Evernorth Immigration." This was a polite and professional opening.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying questions about their situation. The conversation ended quickly without discussing goals, eligibility, or next steps. There was no attempt to re-engage after the lead said they had already replied to a message, missing an opportunity to advance the sale.
Riya Kathuria — 20:11 · 9:28 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company at the start, establishing legitimacy. She successfully moved the conversation towards scheduling a follow-up consultation, locking in a specific date and time, which is a positive step towards closing.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any new client information or clarify the client's situation, missing opportunities to assess eligibility or present programs. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements, and the call mostly revolved around follow-up on paperwork rather than advancing the sales process.
Riya Kathuria — 20:23 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller reached voicemail promptly and did not waste time waiting for an answer.

What went wrong

No message was left, so the lead did not receive any information or invitation to engage further.
data check · 12 calls not matched to a lead · 13 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included