EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Monday, 10 August 2026

built 11 Aug 2026, 06:10 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

88 out / 3 in

Leads

new today

Reached

64 answered − 24 vm, 11 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

20 reached, 24 vm, 8 short, 9 missed

Lead→Booked

33.3%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Ibaad Baig

07:581:38

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Ibaad Baig

08:0013:20

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

Gaurang Chandgadhiya

09:011:10

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Rijan Shahi

09:0510:10

outgoing answered

checklist24/24

Milan Joseph jose

09:150:42

outgoing voicemail

Harsh Thapar

09:180:52

outgoing voicemail

Vivek Kanani

09:190:03

outgoing too short

Yash Lakra

09:230:00

outgoing no answer

albin antony

09:270:37

outgoing no speech

checklist0/2

Krishna Kishore

10:030:00

outgoing no answer

Krishna Kishore

10:040:00

outgoing no answer

Krishna

10:063:13

outgoing answered

checklist13/24

Monir Hossain

10:290:00

outgoing no answer

Kabir Itwala

10:3011:34

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Vivek Shenoy

10:5910:08

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

masum Ahmed

11:320:05

outgoing too short

Dayo Abdulraheem

11:370:33

outgoing voicemail

Sunny Prem Kandi

11:470:04

outgoing too short

Ahmed Ogunbayo

11:510:46

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Bhavesh Bharti

11:570:04

outgoing too short

2894661244

12:330:54

incoming answered

Olorunsola Avan-Nomayo

12:380:09

outgoing too short

+12149709562

12:422:05

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

+19057838479

12:480:05

outgoing too short

Shrijan Thapa

12:510:50

outgoing voicemail

Calvin Rohit Panchal

12:530:06

outgoing too short

Emmanuel

12:551:13

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Anshuman

+14378331458

09:230:00

outgoing no answer

+13438833373

09:230:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

09:260:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

09:550:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

09:560:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

09:580:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

09:590:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:050:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:090:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:180:04

outgoing too short

+14378331458

10:210:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:220:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:450:00

outgoing no answer

74378331458

10:460:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:480:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:510:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:520:00

outgoing no answer

+14378331458

10:530:00

outgoing no answer

Reine

Saad Ahmed Salim

08:000:00

outgoing no answer

Saad Ahmed Salim

08:000:04

outgoing too short

2892990235

08:010:00

incoming no answer

Saad Ahmed Salim

08:020:36

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Manjot Singh Rai

08:036:23

outgoing answered

checklist16/26

2892990235

08:2713:58

incoming answered

Genious Gigla Muradzi

09:278:33

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Cristian Delgado Delgado

10:000:33

outgoing voicemail

Haron Paul Reyes

10:040:22

outgoing voicemail

Olayinka Solano

10:067:23

outgoing answered

checklist12/26

Gursimranjit Gill

10:180:24

outgoing voicemail

Monir Hossain

10:190:00

outgoing no answer

Monir Hossain

10:190:00

outgoing no answer

Noorpreet Singh

10:200:34

outgoing voicemail

Harmanjot Singh

10:340:34

outgoing voicemail

Ewere Monday

10:390:00

outgoing no answer

Ernest Ovbiolokun

10:441:12

outgoing voicemail

Prabhjot Singh

10:460:24

outgoing voicemail

Iyiola Olawale

10:484:25

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

YUG CHAUDHARY

10:570:44

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Binder Singh

11:010:32

outgoing voicemail

Sandeep Sree Kumar

11:030:24

outgoing voicemail

Olgun Şiyar Kurt

11:060:01

outgoing too short

Pintoo

11:100:32

outgoing voicemail

Mohamed Ashfak Saleem

11:131:16

outgoing answered

checklist2/26

Nishendrasingh Rao

11:170:21

outgoing voicemail

Muhammad Haris

11:190:13

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Deep Maggon

11:200:23

outgoing voicemail

Jowayne Hinds

11:221:18

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Joseph Bepo

11:240:00

outgoing no answer

Manoj Kumar

11:270:39

outgoing voicemail

Tarun

11:300:20

outgoing voicemail

Sanam Niraula

11:310:25

outgoing voicemail

Aziz Mahat

11:330:35

outgoing voicemail

Harminder Singh

11:350:10

outgoing voicemail

Mohammed Omer

11:361:35

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Shiron Salim

11:380:29

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Anil Garikapati

11:400:39

outgoing voicemail

DON Thomas

11:411:29

outgoing answered

checklist9/10

Jagjeet Singh

11:440:33

outgoing voicemail

Solomon Ayankoya

11:471:26

outgoing answered

checklist5/25

Andrew Valenzuela

11:500:06

outgoing too short

+14374367396

11:521:31

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Joshua

12:145:31

outgoing answered

checklist15/26

Niraj

12:262:15

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Emmanuel

12:290:54

outgoing answered

checklist4/24

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 6 total

Landing-PGWP

Web-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 1 of 6 leads called

Fastest

80 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

296 min on the clock

Slowest

80 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

296 min on the clock

median 80 min · 5 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	1	27	11	40.7%	1	100.0%
Anshuman Mishra	3	18	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	0	46	18	39.1%	1	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads

Contacted

Qualified

Consultations

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

08:00–10:00 best connect

45/85

52.9%

12:00–14:00

21/51

41.2%

10:00–12:00 worst

65/166

39.2%

average 42.9% over 308 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked

Not qualified / lost

Qualified

In progress (contacted)

New / no activity

Caller activity

Caller	Calls	Talk	Span	First	Last	Notes
Sara Habchi	27	56:11	4:57:35	07:58	12:55	98
Anshuman Mishra	18	0:00	1:30:53	09:23	10:53	12
Reine Francis	46	59:59	4:29:01	08:00	12:29	98
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 5 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Biram Prasad Khatiwada	12:47	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Kuenga Wangchuk	14:10	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Kishan Rana	17:36	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Sarala Devi Radhakrishnan	19:00	—	—	no call	—
Gaganpreet Singh	22:12	—	—	no call	—
Vivek Kanani	04:23	09:19 (0:03)	Sara Habchi	80 min	—

Booked consultations 2 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Ragish Shrestha	Landing-PGWP	Reine Francis	23 Apr 01:03	13:58
Sunny Prem Kandi	Meta-Form-PGWP	Sara Habchi	21 Jul 23:26	15:40

SMS 38 sent · 1 received · 18 contacts

Reply rate

5.6%

1 of 18 conversations

Median reply

177 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	2	0	2	2	0	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	36	1	16	16	1	6.2%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 1 conversation where the client wrote last

Noorpreet Singh 10:33 · Reine Francis 807 min

Hey i will call you shortly

Call reviews 51 of 29 live conversations

Sara Habchi Sarah 07:58 · 1:38 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, and confirmed the lead's name as Sarah. They also correctly identified and clarified the client's current immigration status, showing attention to detail.

What went wrong

The call ended abruptly due to technical issues before any meaningful discussion or selling could occur. Important qualifying questions and next steps were not addressed, and no consultation was offered or scheduled.

Sara Habchi Ibad 08:00 · 13:20 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough needs assessment, confirming key details like age, education, and language proficiency. They clearly explained the client's ineligibility for PGWP and presented a tailored pathway involving work permits and trades, including pricing and next steps. The caller also mentioned the RCIC license and offered a paid consultation with clear payment details.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle common objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' missing opportunities to reassure the client. They also failed to lock in a specific date and time for the consultation or summarize the agreements at the end, which could reduce conversion chances.

Reine Francis Todd 08:02 · 0:36 5/26

What was good

The caller successfully engaged the lead and secured a specific callback time, saying "I'll call you 8:30 exactly." They also confirmed the lead's name as Todd, which is important for personalization.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing an opportunity to build trust. No qualifying questions or information about the lead's situation were asked, and no next steps or consultation offers were made. The call was very brief and lacked any substantive sales or qualification content.

Reine Francis Pranshet 08:03 · 6:23 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name early on. They explained the immigration programs and next steps thoroughly, including the consultation offer and handled the lead's hesitation well by agreeing to send details and follow up.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking key background questions like citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific appointment time, and did not summarize the agreements at the end, which could improve clarity and commitment.

Sara Habchi Goran 09:01 · 1:10 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, saying, "This is Sarah, case manager with Evernorth," and "Good morning, Goran." She successfully scheduled a specific callback time, locking in "Wednesday at 10 a.m." and summarized the agreement well at the end of the call.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, missing an opportunity to assess eligibility or present relevant programs. Contact details were not confirmed, which could cause follow-up issues. The call was mostly about scheduling rather than advancing the sales process.

Sara Habchi Rian 09:05 · 10:10 24/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming all relevant details and clearly explaining the PR pathways and next steps. The caller effectively presented the services and offered a paid consultation with clear instructions, ensuring the lead understood the process and options.

What went wrong

Nothing went wrong in this call. The caller maintained a clear, informative, and compliant approach throughout, with no illegal promises or missed opportunities to engage the lead further.

Sara Habchi Melanie 09:15 · 0:42 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing Melanie and explaining the purpose of the call. The message included the caller's name, company, and a call to action for Melanie to return the call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. No next steps or specific scheduling were locked in during this call.

Sara Habchi Harsh 09:18 · 0:52 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and referenced prior contact to establish context. The message was polite and left an opening for the lead to respond to schedule a call.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. No next steps were locked or contact details confirmed, so the call did not progress beyond leaving a message.

Sara Habchi — 09:27 · 0:37 0/2

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead and identified herself and the company, saying, "This is Sarah from Evernorth."

What went wrong

The call had no response from the lead, resulting in no actual conversation. The caller did not clearly introduce herself or ask for the client's name, and the call ended too quickly to engage or progress the sales process.

Reine Francis Ezra 09:27 · 8:33 13/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and referenced prior email contact, establishing rapport early. They provided detailed explanations of the programs and next steps, including the consultation process and fees, which helps set clear expectations. The caller also avoided making any illegal promises, maintaining compliance throughout the call.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. They did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific consultation date and time, which could lead to delays or lost opportunities. Additionally, the call lacked a summary of agreements at the end to reinforce commitments and next steps.

Reine Francis Christian 10:00 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the reason for the call. The message included a call to action to get back to book a call, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information. No errors were made in the voicemail itself, but no selling or qualification could occur.

Reine Francis — 10:04 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The voicemail clearly stated the purpose and mentioned a special promotion, which might engage the lead.

What went wrong

No live person answered, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead occurred.

Sara Habchi Krishna 10:06 · 3:13 13/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough eligibility assessment and clearly explained the limitations due to the lead's short remaining status. They handled the situation professionally and provided realistic advice without making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather more client information such as age, education, and work experience, and did not offer a next step or confirm contact details. There was also no summary or mention of the RCIC licence to build trust.

Reine Francis Olaenka 10:06 · 7:23 12/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly and engaged the lead well, confirming the current immigration status and explaining the consultation process thoroughly. They presented relevant program options and made no illegal promises, maintaining professionalism throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific consultation date and time, leaving the booking incomplete. Additionally, they did not summarize the agreements at the end, which would help ensure clarity and commitment.

Reine Francis — 10:18 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human interaction. The caller did not waste time and ended promptly.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or leave contact information.

Reine Francis Nourprise 10:20 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, stating their name, role, and reason for calling. They also mentioned sending a WhatsApp message to facilitate scheduling, which is proactive.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was missed. The message was concise and appropriate; nothing went wrong.

Sara Habchi Kabir 10:30 · 11:34 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming key details such as Kabir's status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the PR pathways, eligibility, and next steps including the paid consultation, and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle any objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' which could have strengthened the call. Also, no specific date and time for the consultation was locked, missing an opportunity to secure the booking firmly.

Reine Francis — 10:34 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message referencing prior WhatsApp contact and requesting a response.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage live or advance the sales process, so no errors in the voicemail itself.

Reine Francis Ernest 10:44 · 1:12 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, and referenced a prior WhatsApp conversation, which shows good follow-up. The message was polite and concise, asking for a confirmation regarding the consultation booking.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live conversation, no selling or qualification was possible. The caller should ensure to leave a clear call to action and contact details in future voicemails to maximize response chances.

Reine Francis — 10:46 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller reached voicemail quickly and did not waste time. No message was left, so no unnecessary information was recorded.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a message or attempt to engage the lead, missing an opportunity to connect or provide information.

Reine Francis — 10:48 · 4:25 17/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and effectively discussed the client's current status and goals, including work experience and PR options. They explained the consultation process well and offered a paid consultation as the next step, confirming contact via WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or citizenship, nor did they lock in a specific date and time for the consultation. There was no summary of agreements at the end, and no mention of the RCIC license or handling common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.'

Reine Francis Jörg 10:57 · 0:44 7/26

What was good

The caller quickly reintroduced himself and referenced the previous interaction, showing continuity. He clearly offered the next step by asking if the lead wanted to move forward with the consultation and confirmed contact details by mentioning WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any detailed discussion about the client's situation or needs. There was no attempt to assess eligibility, explain programs, or handle objections beyond a simple follow-up. The caller did not secure a specific date or summarize agreements, missing opportunities to advance the sale.

Sara Habchi Vivek 10:59 · 10:08 22/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and Avra North, confirming the lead's name early on. She thoroughly assessed Vivek's eligibility, explaining the OINP limitations and alternative pathways like trades and Express Entry Francophone. The caller handled objections well, offering to hold the form and inviting further contact, while confirming contact details including WhatsApp for convenience.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather education details, which could be important for a full assessment. Also, no specific date or time was locked for a follow-up consultation, missing an opportunity to secure a commitment. Otherwise, the call was professional and informative without any compliance issues.

Reine Francis Bender 11:01 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message referencing prior contact and the need for confirmation. The message was concise and professional, mentioning the consultation and next steps.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage live with the lead, so no direct selling or qualification occurred. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or inviting the lead to respond via WhatsApp to increase chances of follow-up.

Reine Francis — 11:03 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached an uninitialized voicemail and did not attempt to push a conversation. No message was left, which is appropriate given the situation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with a lead or progress the call, so no errors were made by the caller.

Reine Francis — 11:10 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the purpose and inviting the lead to call back to proceed with booking a consultation. The message was concise and professional.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. No contact details were confirmed or next steps locked, which is expected in this scenario.

Reine Francis — 11:13 · 1:16 2/26

What was good

The caller was polite and acknowledged the lead's change of plans, saying "I'll definitely have your help."

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions or offer next steps. The call lacked any meaningful engagement or sales effort.

Reine Francis — 11:17 · 0:21 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached an uninitialized voicemail and ended promptly without leaving a message.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or provide information to the lead was missed.

Reine Francis Hammad 11:19 · 0:13 4/26

What was good

The caller quickly identified themselves and confirmed the lead's name, showing awareness of prior contact. The polite request to call back in 10 minutes was clear and respectful.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond a quick check-in; no qualifying questions or next steps were discussed. This missed an opportunity to engage the lead further or secure a consultation appointment.

Reine Francis Deep 11:20 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and referenced the previous contact attempt politely. The message was concise and respectful, asking the lead to respond if still interested or to close the file if not.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a two-way conversation or to gather any client information. No next steps or consultation offers were made, but this is expected in a voicemail message.

Reine Francis Dwayne 11:22 · 1:18 9/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company multiple times and confirmed the lead's name, Dwayne. They referenced prior WhatsApp communication and offered the next step by suggesting a consultation and confirming WhatsApp as a contact method.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any new information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, nor did they explain any steps or handle objections. They also failed to lock a specific date and time for the consultation or summarize the agreements before ending the call.

Reine Francis Manoj 11:27 · 0:39 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message referencing prior WhatsApp contact and inviting the lead to respond.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead on this call.

Reine Francis — 11:30 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly and did not waste time waiting. No message was left, which is appropriate given the short call duration.

What went wrong

There was no attempt to leave a message or follow up instructions, which could have improved lead engagement.

Reine Francis Sanam 11:31 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message referencing a previous conversation and inviting the lead to respond if no longer interested.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or engagement could take place. The message could have included a direct call to action or a reminder of the consultation benefits to encourage a response.

Reine Francis Aziz 11:33 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Aziz, referencing prior contact and the purpose of the call. This message effectively invites the lead to respond and keeps the communication open.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or alternative contact method to facilitate easier response.

Reine Francis — 11:35 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail, avoiding unnecessary attempts to sell without a live lead.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide a callback number.

Reine Francis — 11:36 · 1:35 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company multiple times, establishing identity. They also acknowledged prior WhatsApp communication and confirmed the lead's interest in the permanent residence application.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. No eligibility assessment or program presentation was made, nor were next steps or consultations offered. The call ended without locking any follow-up date or confirming contact details, missing key sales opportunities.

Sara Habchi Dayo 11:37 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing previous contact attempts. The message invites the lead to respond at their convenience, which is appropriate for a follow-up.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or advance the sales process. No specific next steps or contact details were confirmed, but this is expected in a voicemail context.

Reine Francis Shiran 11:38 · 0:29 7/26

What was good

The caller quickly identified the lead by name and company, saying 'This is Val, team leader at Evernote' and addressed the lead as 'Shiran'. They also offered a clear next step by promising to send a message on WhatsApp and asking for a response.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not explore any client details such as immigration status, goals, or eligibility. No programs or steps were explained, and no appointment was scheduled. The caller missed the opportunity to summarize agreements or handle objections, limiting the call's effectiveness.

Reine Francis Anian 11:40 · 0:39 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing prior WhatsApp communication. The message clearly requested a response about booking a consultation and confirmation of documents, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity for a live conversation or to demonstrate sales skills. No message was left beyond a brief request, so the chance to engage the lead further was limited.

Reine Francis Don 11:41 · 1:29 9/10

What was good

The caller quickly re-established contact and confirmed the lead's name, saying "Hi, Don" and reminded him of the previous WhatsApp conversation. They successfully locked in a specific date and time for the consultation, "Wednesday around like 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock," and confirmed contact details by promising to send the office address via WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore any details about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to better qualify the lead. There was no summary of the agreements at the end, which could have reinforced the next steps clearly for the lead.

Reine Francis Sachit 11:44 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message referencing a previous conversation and inviting the lead to respond with their decision. The message was polite and professional, maintaining a good tone throughout.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or address any client questions or objections. No direct selling or qualification could be done in this call.

Reine Francis Solomon 11:47 · 1:26 5/25

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, establishing identity early with 'Ren, team leader at Evernorth.' They effectively handled the lead's hesitation by acknowledging the 'I'll think about it' stance and respecting the lead's timeline, as seen when they said, 'Okay, so you're not ready to move forward now?'.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather essential information such as immigration goals, status, and eligibility, which are critical for tailoring advice. There was no attempt to offer a next step like a paid consultation or to lock in a follow-up appointment, and no contact details were confirmed, limiting future engagement potential.

Sara Habchi Ahmed 11:51 · 0:46 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, stating 'Sarah from Evernorth' and mentioned the RCIC license, which adds credibility. She also confirmed the lead's name, Ahmed, ensuring she was speaking to the right person.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage in any meaningful conversation about Ahmed's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, and did not offer a next step or lock a consultation. The call ended quickly with the lead saying 'can we talk later?' and no follow-up appointment was set.

Reine Francis — 11:52 · 1:31 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, saying "I guess this is Ren, team leader at Evernorth." They successfully offered a next step by booking a consultation and locked in a specific date and time for tomorrow at 2 p.m. The caller also confirmed the lead would send the necessary documents by email.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or gather any immigration-related information such as citizenship, status, goals, or qualifications. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or timelines, and no summary of agreements at the end. The call was very transactional and missed opportunities to engage the lead more deeply.

Reine Francis Joshua 12:14 · 5:31 15/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified the lead as Joshua and discussed his immigration goals, including OMP and Express Entry options. They successfully offered a next step by explaining the need to sign an agreement and pay, and locked a specific follow-up date for next Monday.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important information such as citizenship, current immigration status, age, education, and language proficiency. There was no explanation of steps and timelines, no mention of the RCIC license, and no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements at the end.

Reine Francis Niraj 12:26 · 2:15 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name and location. They handled the 'I'll think about it' objection professionally and maintained a polite tone throughout the call.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, nor did they present any program or next steps. No consultation was offered or scheduled, and key qualifying questions were missed, limiting the call's effectiveness.

Reine Francis Emmanuel 12:29 · 0:54 4/24

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly and referenced prior contact, establishing continuity with the lead by saying, 'We've already spoke by WhatsApp before.' He also confirmed the lead's identity by addressing him by name, Emmanuel.

What went wrong

The call was very short and ended abruptly due to poor audio quality, with the caller saying, 'I can barely hear you. Let me call you on WhatsApp.' This prevented any meaningful discussion about the client's situation or next steps. No eligibility assessment, program presentation, or consultation offer was made.

Sara Habchi — 12:42 · 2:05 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company at the start, establishing the context for the call. She also confirmed the client's WhatsApp contact details to send important information, ensuring follow-up communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or gather any key immigration details such as status, goals, or eligibility, missing a crucial opportunity to engage and assess the lead. There was no attempt to present programs, explain next steps, or secure a consultation appointment, making the call largely informational and lacking in sales progression.

Sara Habchi Srijan 12:51 · 0:50 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company in the voicemail, saying, "this is Sarah from Evernorth."

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or advance the sale. No message was left beyond the introduction, missing a chance to prompt a callback or next step.

Sara Habchi Emmanuel 12:55 · 1:13 6/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, which helped maintain a personal connection. She successfully locked in a specific follow-up date, saying 'I will call you back on Friday,' which is a positive step in managing the sales process.

What went wrong

The call lacked any substantive discussion about the lead's immigration goals, status, or eligibility, missing many key qualification questions. There was no presentation of programs, no explanation of next steps, and no offer of a paid consultation, which means the call did not advance the sales process significantly beyond scheduling a follow-up.

data check · 29 calls not matched to a lead · 2 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included