EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Thursday, 13 August 2026

built 14 Aug 2026, 06:13 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

100

87 out / 13 in

Leads

new today

Reached

83 answered − 29 vm, 23 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

24 reached, 24 vm, 20 short, 3 missed

Lead→Booked

9.4%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Rijan Shahi

09:042:54

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Kabir Itwala

09:082:53

outgoing answered

checklist9/10

Ibaad Baig

09:150:02

outgoing too short

2894661244

09:1711:01

incoming answered

Yash Lakra

09:290:04

outgoing too short

Roshan Kasti

09:310:01

outgoing too short

albin antony

09:320:37

outgoing voicemail

Mirza Baig

09:342:35

outgoing answered

checklist14/20

Himanshu sikka

09:380:13

outgoing voicemail

Anwar MD

09:400:24

outgoing voicemail

Honey Singh

09:410:26

outgoing voicemail

Devang Patel

09:430:03

outgoing too short

Raghav Sharma

09:460:30

outgoing voicemail

Jagadish Singh Dadal

09:490:08

outgoing too short

Ziad Jamal

09:524:32

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

Sanit Kumar

10:070:03

outgoing too short

𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕠 𝕆𝕨𝕚𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕣

10:160:26

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Edward Gamo Balitanas

10:180:05

outgoing too short

Edward Gamo Balitanas

10:200:00

incoming no answer

Edward Gamo Balitanas

10:210:47

outgoing answered

checklist6/14

Dayo Abdulraheem

10:220:03

outgoing too short

Chirag Patel

10:473:09

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Prabin Sejwal

10:510:03

outgoing too short

Ayush Shukla

10:530:01

outgoing too short

Raffy Lim

10:550:06

outgoing too short

Sumit

10:560:56

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

nashatar singh

11:000:05

outgoing too short

Vijay Surya

11:020:03

outgoing too short

Afthabul Ameen

11:030:04

outgoing too short

Bhavesh Bharti

11:050:05

outgoing too short

+12899968668

11:090:04

outgoing too short

+12899968668

11:114:11

incoming answered

+12899968668

11:160:00

incoming no answer

+12899968668

11:160:00

incoming no answer

Rosemary

11:187:37

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

Zainbeg Junedbeg Mirza

11:290:09

outgoing too short

2894661244

11:380:00

incoming no answer

Zainbeg Junedbeg Mirza

11:3915:06

outgoing answered

checklist20/24

Zainbeg Junedbeg Mirza

11:559:38

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Fabunmi Olusegun Joseph

12:3213:40

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

Olorunsola Avan-Nomayo

12:502:32

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Christian G Doekpar

12:540:03

outgoing too short

+12149709562

12:580:36

outgoing no speech

2894661244

12:590:00

incoming no answer

+17059313560

13:010:00

outgoing no answer

Anibu

13:051:49

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Lahprit

13:090:42

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

+14374228911

13:120:07

outgoing too short

2894661244

16:540:00

incoming no answer

2894661244

16:540:00

incoming no answer

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

+14385352655

09:030:00

outgoing no answer

DON Thomas

09:060:04

outgoing too short

Andrew Valenzuela

09:080:02

outgoing too short

Prakash Dandhi

09:110:59

outgoing voicemail

Ka Olukayode

09:171:12

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Dhyan Patel

09:371:26

outgoing voicemail

Olayinka Solano

09:435:16

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

Noorpreet Singh

09:520:07

outgoing too short

Mr Chizzy

09:540:43

outgoing voicemail

Manjot Singh Rai

09:580:38

outgoing voicemail

Prabhjot Singh

10:010:24

outgoing voicemail

Seun Oyewusi

10:030:00

outgoing no answer

Ernest Ovbiolokun

10:041:05

outgoing voicemail

Solomon Koomson

10:071:23

outgoing voicemail

Ravinder Singh

10:121:37

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Saad Ahmed Salim

10:250:29

outgoing voicemail

Prince Prince

10:292:37

outgoing answered

checklist8/24

K D Nishantha Nishan

10:360:34

outgoing voicemail

Ishmael Afful

10:390:28

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Gurpal Singh

10:410:49

outgoing voicemail

Imran Mohammad

10:440:56

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Moe Ks

10:480:07

outgoing too short

Sandeep Sree Kumar

10:500:24

outgoing voicemail

Pintoo

10:530:29

outgoing voicemail

Olgun Şiyar Kurt

10:540:28

outgoing voicemail

Amrit Pal Singh

10:560:38

outgoing voicemail

Shiron Salim

10:590:52

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Nishendrasingh Rao

11:011:19

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Aziz Mahat

11:040:37

outgoing voicemail

Mohammad Jahid

11:128:07

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

2892990235

11:210:00

incoming no answer

Aryan Dutta

11:223:51

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Rahul Kumar Nelakurthi

11:290:37

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Jowayne Hinds

11:301:18

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Anil Garikapati

11:340:39

outgoing voicemail

Muhammad Haris

11:350:40

outgoing voicemail

+14374367396

11:400:28

outgoing voicemail

Ravinder Singh

11:410:00

incoming no answer

+15197845036

11:440:23

outgoing voicemail

Md Zahurul Islam Zayed

11:460:38

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Emmanuel

11:480:31

outgoing voicemail

Thomas Fan

11:540:37

outgoing voicemail

16449678432

11:570:00

outgoing no answer

16449678432

11:570:00

outgoing no answer

Rakesh Hans

12:010:00

outgoing no answer

Aftab Hussain

12:020:40

outgoing voicemail

Dev

12:037:27

outgoing answered

checklist18/26

Rakesh Hans

12:100:00

incoming no answer

2892990235

12:100:00

incoming no answer

Harsh Sharma

12:250:38

outgoing voicemail

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 32 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

Web-Organic

Reception-Calls

Speed to lead working minutes · 2 of 32 leads called

Fastest

12 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

Slowest

241 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

586 min on the clock

median 241 min · 30 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	9	50	17	34.0%	1	0	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	6	0	0	0.0%	0	1	16.7%
Reine Francis	6	50	14	28.0%	0	2	33.3%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads

Contacted

Qualified

Consultations

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

12:00–14:00 best connect

36/87

41.4%

16:00–18:00

6/16

37.5%

10:00–12:00

86/240

35.8%

08:00–10:00

50/144

34.7%

18:00–20:00 worst

1/10

10.0%

average 36.0% over 497 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	50	1:24:28	7:50:06	09:04	16:54	63
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	12
Reine Francis	50	36:15	3:22:03	09:03	12:25	105
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 29 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Hussein Haidarr	00:09	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Vedant	00:55	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
rick	01:03	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Sajan Nedumpilly Martin	02:07	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Osei Bonsu	02:34	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Ishpreet Singh	03:43	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Nadia Sofiane	05:02	—	—	no call	—
Zaid	05:53	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Osei Rose Adwoa Serwah	08:34	—	—	no call	—
Harshdeep singh	10:24	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Oghogho Odoko	10:37	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Joseph Pulickal	11:55	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Gagan Shrestha	12:25	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Jyot Patel	12:54	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Bei	17:13	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Sauru	17:36	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Gookul Budhathoki	18:23	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Saravana Kumar	18:30	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Edison Antony	18:39	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Simranpreet Singh	18:41	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
saurabh rathi	19:15	—	—	no call	—
Dickson Nzete	19:30	—	—	no call	—
Sandeep Yadav	20:42	—	—	no call	—
Yatrik dave	20:52	—	—	no call	—
Saad Suhaib	21:32	—	—	no call	—
Nicolas López	22:01	—	—	no call	—
Harmeet Singh	22:02	—	—	no call	—
Thiago Damiao	22:58	—	—	no call	—
Nirav Pujari	23:18	—	—	no call	—
Rakesh Hans	02:15	12:01 (0:00)	Reine Francis	241 min	—
Thomas Fan	11:42	11:54 (0:37)	Reine Francis	12 min	voicemail
Zainbeg Junedbeg Mirza	12:05	11:29 (0:09)	Sara Habchi	inbound first	—

Booked consultations 3 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Mahmoud Hatramsi	Meta-Form-PGWP	Reine Francis	11 Aug 12:52	09:29
Olayinka Solano	Landing-PGWP	Reine Francis	09 Aug 04:14	10:04
Adetomiwa Ojo	Aash-Referral	Anshuman Mishra	13 Aug 18:00	18:42

SMS 61 sent · 10 received · 32 contacts

Reply rate

18.8%

6 of 32 conversations

Median reply

244 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	22	4	10	8	1	12.5%
Anshuman Mishra	0	1	1	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	39	5	24	24	5	20.8%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 5 conversations where the client wrote last

Osei Bonsu 08:28 · Sara Habchi 931 min

Yes

Rakesh Hans 12:09 · Reine Francis 710 min

Now.

Edison Antony 18:40 · Reine Francis 319 min

289 479 5739

Simranpreet Singh 18:48 · Anshuman Mishra 311 min

Good evening My name is Simranpreet Singh. I would like to schedule a call for immigration guidance

Harsh Sharma 19:03 · Reine Francis 296 min

Hii Reine, I'm so sorry I was at work when I got your call. If it possible can meet in person next week, I might ne free

Call reviews 58 of 31 live conversations

Sara Habchi Richard 09:04 · 2:54 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from Avernoorth.' She confirmed the lead's name early on and identified his goal as a PSW job, then explained the consultation process and next steps well, including the $99 deposit and employer linking. The caller also reassured the lead about timing and demand for trades jobs.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's citizenship, immigration status, age, education, or language skills, missing key eligibility information. No eligibility assessment or points discussion occurred, and no RCIC licence or past cases were mentioned to build trust. The caller did not lock a specific appointment or confirm contact details, nor did she summarize agreements at the end. Also, the lead's name was confused as 'John' near the end, which could cause confusion.

Sara Habchi Kabir 09:08 · 2:53 9/10

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and confirmed the lead's name early on. She successfully locked in a specific date and time for the consultation and confirmed the preferred contact method, showing good control of the booking process.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore any immigration details such as the lead's goals, status, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to engage more deeply. Also, there was no summary of agreements at the end to reinforce the next steps clearly.

Reine Francis Prakash 09:11 · 0:59 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to engage the lead or gather information, so no opportunity to advance the sales process occurred.

Reine Francis Kaioje 09:17 · 1:12 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early in the call, establishing rapport. They also offered the next step by discussing the consultation and its cost, showing readiness to proceed.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, and goals, which are essential for tailoring advice. They did not lock in a specific date or confirm contact details, which could lead to follow-up difficulties. The call ended abruptly without summarizing agreements or next steps clearly.

Sara Habchi Alban 09:32 · 0:37 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them about the consultation decision.

What went wrong

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

Sara Habchi Mirza 09:34 · 2:35 14/20

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and engaged the lead Mirza in a follow-up about proceeding with a consultation. She effectively explained the pathways and addressed concerns about eligibility and timelines, showing good knowledge of immigration options.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm basic client details like citizenship or immigration status, nor did she confirm contact information or lock in a consultation date. There was no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases, and the call ended without summarizing agreements or confirming next steps clearly.

Reine Francis John 09:37 · 1:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear, polite voicemail message for John, reminding him about the consultation booking and next steps. The message was concise and professional, showing good follow-up practice.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to assess sales techniques or information gathering. The caller did not introduce the company clearly at the start of a live call, but this is acceptable in a voicemail context.

Sara Habchi — 09:38 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human interaction.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead.

Sara Habchi Anwar 09:40 · 0:24 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 when ready.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or advance the sale. The message was brief and did not include a call to action beyond asking for an update.

Sara Habchi — 09:41 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message, stating their name and company, and requested a response regarding the consultation booking.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information, as the call went to voicemail. No direct selling or qualification could be done.

Reine Francis Olaenka 09:43 · 5:16 17/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and referenced the previous conversation, helping the lead recall the context. They successfully explained the consultation process and locked in a specific date and time for the paid consultation, ensuring next steps were clear.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather key client information such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a thorough assessment. There was also no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could build trust.

Sara Habchi — 09:46 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, stating their name and company, and inviting the lead to respond if interested.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not include a callback number or specific next steps.

Sara Habchi M. Jamal 09:52 · 4:32 17/26

What was good

The caller maintained a professional and informative tone throughout, clearly explaining the PNP process and employer requirements. They confirmed contact details and summarized next steps well, ensuring the lead understood to follow up with their employer and the licensed consultant.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. Also, no specific consultation date or time was locked, which could reduce conversion chances.

Reine Francis Suzy 09:54 · 0:43 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Suzy, reminding her about the consultation booking and the need to schedule at least a day in advance. The message was concise and informative, mentioning limited spots and encouraging a prompt response.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live interaction, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No errors in the voicemail itself, but no direct selling or qualification occurred.

Reine Francis Manzot 09:58 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them about their previous discussion. The message was concise and invited the lead to respond by message or email, 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 handle objections. No next steps were locked in, but this is expected in a voicemail scenario.

Reine Francis — 10:01 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to push further without a live person. The 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 details for a callback.

Reine Francis Erna 10:04 · 1:05 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Erna, reminding her to send documents and book a consultation spot.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message was brief but did not include a direct call to action or contact details for easy reply.

Reine Francis Solomon 10:07 · 1:23 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, reminding Solomon about the consultation and available dates.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or address any objections. No issues with the message content itself.

Reine Francis — 10:12 · 1:37 7/26

What was good

The caller handled objections well, addressing the lead's hesitation and mentioning the consultation with a licensed consultant. They kept the conversation polite and professional, saying, "we need to start with the consultation to have a detailed evaluation."

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any personal details. They failed to lock a specific date and time or confirm contact details, which are important for securing the next step. The call ended without a clear summary or commitment.

Sara Habchi Suna 10:16 · 0:26 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, 'this is Sarah from Evernorth,' and confirmed the lead's name, Suna. She also secured agreement to continue communication via WhatsApp, which keeps the conversation open.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any substantive immigration questions or offer any next steps. The caller did not ask about the lead's situation or goals, nor did she handle objections or summarize agreements. The lead asked to switch to text due to being in a meeting, so the call ended prematurely without progressing the sale.

Sara Habchi Edward 10:21 · 0:47 6/14

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch. She also reminded Edward of the previous contact and the PR service, keeping the conversation relevant and professional.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore any details about Edward's situation such as his immigration status or goals, nor did she attempt to handle objections or offer a next step like a paid consultation. The call ended without confirming any follow-up date or contact details, missing an opportunity to advance the sales process.

Reine Francis Saad 10:25 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear, polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them about booking a consultation. The message was concise and professional, encouraging the lead to respond regarding availability.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification could take place. The caller did not have the opportunity to engage or gather information from the lead.

Reine Francis — 10:29 · 2:37 8/24

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and successfully locked in a specific date and time for the consultation, confirming the Google Meet as the contact method. They also clearly explained the consultation fee and next steps, including required documents.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals, missing an opportunity to better qualify the lead. There was no summary of agreements at the end, and no discussion of eligibility or program details, which could have strengthened the call.

Reine Francis — 10:36 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message, reminding the lead about the consultation and inviting them to respond when ready. The message was concise and professional, maintaining a positive tone.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information from the lead. No message was left beyond a brief reminder, which might limit the chance to prompt immediate action.

Reine Francis — 10:39 · 0:28 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced himself and the company, saying, "Timothy from Evergreen with good express group." He also offered a next step by mentioning booking a consultation.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or any qualifying information such as immigration status or goals. No attempt was made to lock a specific date and time or confirm contact details. The call ended abruptly with the client saying they would call back or respond by email, so no summary or further engagement occurred.

Reine Francis Gopal 10:41 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them about booking a consultation. The message included specific options for dates and a call to action to respond promptly.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information. The message could have included a brief mention of the company name more clearly to reinforce branding.

Reine Francis Ram 10:44 · 0:56 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and reminded the lead about the previous conversation, maintaining a polite and professional tone. She also arranged a follow-up plan, saying, "should I follow up again by Monday?" which shows good persistence.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing key qualification steps. No specific appointment was locked, and no contact details were confirmed, which weakens the chance of securing the consultation.

Sara Habchi Chirag 10:47 · 3:09 9/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and confirmed the lead's name and location. She also offered the next step of a paid consultation and clarified the invoice details.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore the lead's immigration status, age, education, language skills, or work experience, nor did she assess eligibility or present a program. No steps, timelines, or RCIC credentials were explained, and no objections were handled. The call ended without locking a consultation date or confirming contact details, and no summary was given.

Reine Francis — 10:50 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail clearly and the system message was left intact without interruption.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so no opportunity to engage the lead was taken.

Reine Francis — 10:53 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message identifying themselves and the purpose of the call, which is good for follow-up.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to engage the lead or gather information, so no selling or qualification could occur.

Reine Francis Olga 10:54 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and stating the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not include a call to action beyond asking for a callback.

Sara Habchi Sumit 10:56 · 0:56 4/26

What was good

The caller politely reintroduced herself and the company, confirming the lead's name and respecting his decision to not proceed at this time. The tone was professional and courteous throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not attempt to gather any new information or address the lead's needs beyond the follow-up. No effort was made to explore the lead's current situation or offer next steps, resulting in a very brief and unproductive call.

Reine Francis Amrit Singh 10:56 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message for Amrit Singh, politely checking interest and decision status.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 10:59 · 0:52 4/26

What was good

The caller maintained a polite tone and followed up on a previous communication, showing persistence by saying, "I was following up."

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information. There was no attempt to explain the process, offer next steps, or confirm contact details, resulting in a very limited and unproductive call.

Reine Francis — 11:01 · 1:19 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, saying 'I'm the team leader at Evernorth.' They also acknowledged the lead's location and willingness to visit the office in the future, showing attentiveness to the lead's preferences.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or gather any immigration-related information such as goals, status, or eligibility. No next steps like a paid consultation or appointment were offered or confirmed, and no contact details were verified. The conversation remained very basic and did not progress toward a sales opportunity.

Reine Francis — 11:04 · 0:37 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, mentioning the consultation and urgency with spots filling up. The message was concise and professional, encouraging the lead to respond.

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 email for easier contact.

Reine Francis — 11:12 · 8:07 21/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and effectively presented relevant immigration options including the trade sector jobs and French language pathway. They handled the lead's hesitation well by offering alternative solutions and explaining the consultation process in detail, including pricing and scheduling specific appointment times.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm contact details, which are important for personalizing the service and follow-up. Also, the caller missed asking about the lead's age and education, which are key eligibility factors. There was no handling of the 'I'll do it myself' objection, though it may not have arisen.

Sara Habchi Rosemary 11:18 · 7:37 17/26

What was good

The caller provided a thorough explanation of the client's options and eligibility, clearly outlining programs like trades and the Francophone mobility program. They offered a next step with a paid consultation and confirmed contact details, showing good process clarity. The caller avoided any illegal promises and maintained professionalism throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about key personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, age, and education, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not mention their RCIC license or handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Additionally, no specific consultation date or time was locked in during the call.

Reine Francis Aryan 11:22 · 3:51 13/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and referenced prior contact, which helped establish rapport. They explained the consultation process and the involvement of an RCIC licensed consultant, providing credibility. The caller handled the lead's hesitation well by agreeing to follow up later and summarizing the next steps.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather key information such as citizenship, immigration status, age, and language proficiency, which are important for assessing eligibility. They did not lock in a specific appointment date or confirm contact details, which could have strengthened the lead engagement.

Reine Francis Ram 11:29 · 0:37 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified himself and referenced a previous conversation, saying 'This is Ram, team leader at Evernorth' and reminding the lead about the consultation. The caller was polite and respectful throughout the brief exchange.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to engage the lead by not asking for their name or any details about their immigration status or goals. There was no attempt to present programs, explain next steps, or secure a consultation appointment, making the call very limited in sales effectiveness.

Reine Francis Delaine 11:30 · 1:18 5/26

What was good

The caller maintained a polite tone and confirmed the lead's name, Delaine, showing familiarity by referencing a previous conversation. They handled the lead's objection about being busy by suggesting a WhatsApp follow-up, which keeps the communication channel open.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing an important professional step. They failed to gather any substantive information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, and did not present any program or next steps such as a paid consultation. There was no attempt to lock a specific appointment or summarize agreements, making the call largely unproductive beyond a brief check-in.

Reine Francis Ania 11:34 · 0:39 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing prior contact on WhatsApp, which helps maintain engagement. The message was concise and included a call to action, encouraging the lead to respond when convenient.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information. The caller could consider leaving a slightly more detailed message next time to increase the chance of a callback.

Reine Francis Hamad 11:35 · 0:40 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them to respond and upload files. The message was concise and professional, maintaining a respectful tone.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to engage the lead or gather information, so no selling or qualification could be done. The caller missed the opportunity to speak directly with the lead to advance the sales process.

Sara Habchi Zain 11:39 · 15:06 20/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Zain, confirming detailed personal and immigration information and clearly explaining the PR process and next steps. The caller effectively presented the services and the role of the RCIC licensed consultants, ensuring the lead understood the evaluation and consultation process.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, nor did they confirm contact details or summarize the agreements at the end of the call. These omissions could lead to less commitment from the lead and potential follow-up difficulties.

Reine Francis — 11:40 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message requesting the lead to sign the agreement and proceed with payment. The message was polite and concise, encouraging the lead to respond.

What went wrong

The caller did not reach a live person and therefore could not engage in any conversation or gather information. No introduction or qualification was possible, and no next steps were confirmed with the lead.

Reine Francis — 11:44 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached a voicemail service and did not attempt to push further. The message was clear and professional.

What went wrong

No message was left for the lead, missing an opportunity to engage or prompt a callback.

Reine Francis Hamad 11:46 · 0:38 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name, showing a personal connection by referencing the paid consultation. They also arranged to follow up via WhatsApp, respecting the lead's request to call later.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any immigration details or assess the lead's needs. No next steps were firmly scheduled, and no program or process was explained, missing an opportunity to engage the lead more fully.

Reine Francis Emmanuel 11:48 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message identifying themselves and requesting a callback. The message was polite and gave the lead an option to stop contact if uninterested.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller did not leave detailed information about services or next steps, which might have encouraged a response.

Reine Francis Thomas 11:54 · 0:37 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 also offered alternative contact methods, which is helpful for the lead.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling actions could be performed. The caller did not leave a detailed message about next steps or a specific call-back time, which could improve engagement.

Sara Habchi Zane 11:55 · 9:38 20/26

What was good

The caller maintained a professional and informative tone throughout, clearly explaining the available pathways and packages, and confirming the lead's details for follow-up. They effectively handled objections and provided a thorough overview of the consultation process, including payment details, which helped build trust and clarity.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's citizenship, country of residence, current immigration status, and age, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. Also, no specific date or time for the consultation was locked, which could delay the booking process.

Reine Francis Fattous Hussein 12:02 · 0:40 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, mentioning the lead's name and the company name, and inviting the lead to respond at their convenience. The message also offered alternative communication methods, which is helpful for the lead.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were completed. The caller did not leave a detailed message about next steps or a specific call-back time, which could improve engagement.

Reine Francis — 12:03 · 7:27 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and available immigration options, providing detailed information about programs and next steps. They handled the call professionally, mentioning the RCIC license and offering a paid consultation with clear instructions.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or age, and did not lock in a specific consultation date and time, leaving the booking open-ended. Also, the call ended without summarizing the agreements made, which could have reinforced the next steps.

Reine Francis Harris 12:25 · 0:38 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 an invitation to respond with a suitable time and offered alternative contact methods like WhatsApp or email.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were completed. The caller did not confirm any details or lock a next step during this call.

Sara Habchi Fabian 12:32 · 13:40 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming Fabian's details and explaining the PR process clearly. They presented the right programs and emphasized the RCIC license, building trust effectively. The consultation offer was clearly explained with payment details and options.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Also, they did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation or summarize the agreements at the end, which could improve closing rates.

Sara Habchi — 12:50 · 2:32 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Sarah from Ever North' and referenced the client's prior consultation with an RCIC licensed consultant, establishing credibility. The caller also provided useful information about French language courses and collaboration with schools, which was relevant to the client's current focus on learning French.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals, missing an opportunity to engage more deeply. No next steps such as offering a paid consultation or locking a date and time were proposed, and the call lacked a summary or confirmation of contact details, which would have strengthened the follow-up process.

Sara Habchi — 12:58 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to engage the lead by greeting and checking audibility with "Hello, hi Priyanka, how are you today?" and "Can you hear me?".

What went wrong

The call was extremely short and did not progress beyond initial greetings and audio checks. No information was gathered or shared, and no sales steps were taken.

Sara Habchi Anibu 13:05 · 1:49 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and confirmed the lead's name early in the call. She maintained a polite and professional tone throughout the conversation and respected the lead's current stage in the process.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask any qualifying questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, or education, nor did she assess eligibility or present any new program options. There was no attempt to handle objections or to secure a next step like a paid consultation or schedule a follow-up appointment. The call ended without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements, missing key sales opportunities.

Sara Habchi Lahprit 13:09 · 0:42 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from Evernoyes' and addressed the lead by name, creating a personal connection. The tone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not cover any substantive information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or next steps. No consultation was offered or scheduled, and no objections were handled. The opportunity to engage the lead more deeply was missed.

data check · 23 calls not matched to a lead · 2 leads without a phone number · 11 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included