EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Monday, 17 August 2026

built 18 Aug 2026, 06:13 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

66 out / 12 in

Leads

new today

Reached

65 answered − 18 vm, 25 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

170

SMS

Follow-up

21 reached, 15 vm, 23 short, 6 missed

Lead→Booked

6.5%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Avishek Chimariya

07:3711:32

incoming answered

Ikeolu Alabi

08:0014:04

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Guneet Bedi

08:1810:18

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Sahil Patial

09:010:06

outgoing too short

ALAN

09:090:00

outgoing no answer

Aaron

09:110:51

outgoing voicemail

Aastha chhetri

09:140:05

outgoing too short

Ahmed

09:150:05

outgoing too short

Ajay Ghising

09:160:03

outgoing too short

Amber Sharda

09:180:03

outgoing too short

Amit Kumar

09:190:04

outgoing too short

Anand

09:220:12

outgoing voicemail

2894661244

09:220:01

incoming too short

2894661244

09:220:00

incoming no answer

Aastha chhetri

09:251:35

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Glenworth Patterson

09:424:26

outgoing answered

checklist14/26

Annlyn Annlyn Davis

09:471:12

outgoing answered

checklist8/22

Anton

09:501:36

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Armen

09:530:16

outgoing voicemail

Arpandeep Singh

09:550:49

outgoing voicemail

Arpandeep Singh

10:050:04

outgoing too short

Arun Devassykutty

10:051:39

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Ashwin Johnson

10:140:02

outgoing too short

Ben

10:160:06

outgoing too short

Biram prasad khatiwada

10:170:04

outgoing too short

Chamsing

10:190:03

outgoing too short

Chintan savaliya

10:200:04

outgoing too short

Dell Oznolam

10:210:00

outgoing no answer

Dharmveer Singh

10:220:06

outgoing too short

Diego Collantes

10:430:04

outgoing too short

Don

10:450:03

outgoing too short

Fuad ahmed Quraishi

10:490:05

outgoing too short

John Joseph

10:570:03

outgoing too short

Hareesh

10:591:10

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Hari Patel

11:020:47

outgoing voicemail

Harith Imesha Abeywardena

11:090:03

outgoing too short

Harsh Singh

11:100:51

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Harshdeep Singh

11:160:58

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Ihor Sydorchuk

11:230:04

outgoing too short

2894661244

11:230:00

incoming no answer

2894661244

11:240:00

incoming no answer

Ihor Sydorchuk

11:250:04

outgoing too short

Jaime

11:290:04

outgoing too short

Joseph A Ekanem

11:310:07

outgoing too short

Junerey Dulfo

11:330:02

outgoing too short

Kantapon Jeeraruangrattana

11:340:00

outgoing no answer

Okoro Emmanuel

11:370:00

outgoing no answer

Harith Imesha Abeywardena

11:571:02

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Harith Imesha Abeywardena

11:5813:16

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

Ben

12:3019:55

incoming answered

2894661244

12:500:00

incoming no answer

Rick

13:0710:48

outgoing answered

checklist20/24

Hareesh

13:290:43

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Anshuman

2894795739

12:110:00

incoming no answer

Reine

Parth

10:300:24

outgoing voicemail

Trevante Dailey

10:341:24

outgoing answered

checklist8/24

Nischal Acharya

10:450:38

outgoing voicemail

Anand Miglani

10:530:00

incoming no answer

Khushdeep Singh

11:002:08

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

N A E E M

11:038:47

outgoing answered

checklist19/26

Navjot Singh

11:170:31

outgoing voicemail

Nisarg Chauhan

11:190:30

outgoing voicemail

Nishan Gajurel

11:210:34

outgoing voicemail

P Nabeel

11:230:06

outgoing too short

Parv Chugh

11:250:24

outgoing voicemail

Paul Junior

11:261:26

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Rahul Verma

11:287:05

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Rohan Borad

11:470:23

outgoing voicemail

Saneen Azad

11:487:41

outgoing answered

checklist14/26

Satya Sekhar Bonda

12:041:16

outgoing voicemail

Sawan Kumar

12:050:35

outgoing voicemail

Sukhjit Singh

12:071:14

outgoing voicemail

Navjot Singh

12:100:00

incoming no answer

Sukhnoor

12:150:44

outgoing voicemail

checklist2/6

VISHAL

12:161:12

outgoing voicemail

Yahya

12:170:45

outgoing voicemail

2892990235

21:090:00

incoming no answer

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 31 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

Web-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 5 of 31 leads called

Fastest

77 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

310 min on the clock

Slowest

247 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

481 min on the clock

median 200 min · 26 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	1	53	16	30.2%	0	0	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	1	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	5	24	6	25.0%	2	2	40.0%
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

39/92

42.4%

16:00–18:00

6/16

37.5%

08:00–10:00

56/155

36.1%

10:00–12:00 worst

97/273

35.5%

average 36.8% over 541 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	53	1:35:05	5:52:48	07:37	13:29	137
Anshuman Mishra	1	0:00	—	12:11	12:11	0
Reine Francis	24	28:31	15:10:31	05:58	21:09	174
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 26 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Ram B K	04:06	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Armando Niño de Rivera	07:51	—	—	no call	—
Harjot Ghatora	09:24	—	—	no call	—
Md Helal Hossen	09:34	—	—	no call	—
Gurpreet Singh	11:51	—	—	no call	—
Sarbjeet Singh	12:01	—	—	no call	—
Nandu Shaji	12:20	—	—	no call	—
Priyanshu Sangwan	12:37	—	—	no call	—
RICO DE LOS REYES	13:12	—	—	no call	—
Omachonu Ufedo Julius	13:50	—	—	no call	—
Sarvesh Giri	14:38	—	—	no call	—
𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 𝒋𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂	14:40	—	—	no call	—
Mustafa Qasim	14:50	—	—	no call	—
Sarvesh Giri	15:58	—	—	no call	—
Samuel	17:15	—	—	no call	—
Inderpal Sandhu	20:03	—	—	no call	—
Jiby Jose	20:13	—	—	no call	—
Deryck Rose	20:21	—	—	no call	—
Kevin Morgan	21:04	—	—	no call	—
Manthan Patel	21:30	—	—	no call	—
Navjot Singh	21:43	—	—	no call	—
Parminder Singh	22:06	—	—	no call	—
Daniel Carlos	22:31	—	—	no call	—
Dilbar Hussain	22:36	—	—	no call	—
Jaskaran Singh	22:40	—	—	no call	—
Jacob Mathew Kurizunkal	23:17	—	—	no call	—
Sukhjit Singh	04:06	12:07 (1:14)	Reine Francis	247 min	voicemail
Rahul Verma	00:51	11:28 (7:05)	Reine Francis	209 min	20/26
Nisarg Chauhan	01:19	11:19 (0:30)	Reine Francis	200 min	voicemail
Parth	04:06	10:30 (0:24)	Reine Francis	151 min	voicemail
Ajay Ghising	04:06	09:16 (0:03)	Sara Habchi	77 min	—

Booked consultations 2 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Franca Oghogho Nkem Iweka	Client-Referall	Reine Francis	16 Aug 20:00	09:56
Smitkumar Maheshbhai Patel	Client-Referall	Reine Francis	16 Aug 20:00	18:31

SMS 149 sent · 21 received · 79 contacts

Reply rate

15.4%

12 of 78 conversations

Median reply

2 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	87	16	41	39	7	17.9%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	62	5	39	39	5	12.8%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 8 conversations where the client wrote last

Glenworth Patterson 09:37 · Sara Habchi 862 min

Hi Sara, please call in this number 2262802839

Ram B K 09:48 · Reine Francis 851 min

6Am - 2 PM

Navjot Singh 11:20 · Reine Francis 760 min

Ben 11:54 · Sara Habchi 726 min

Perfect! Thanks

Priyanshu Sangwan 12:38 · Reine Francis 682 min

5Pm- 9Pm

+4374402039 15:05 · Sara Habchi 535 min

Hi good day. You ready for me?

dax patel 18:17 · Sara Habchi 343 min

After 9 o'clock tomorrow i will call you

Inderpal Sandhu 20:04 · Reine Francis 235 min

6AM-2PM

Call reviews 38 of 22 live conversations

Sara Habchi Alabi 08:00 · 14:04 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed information and explaining multiple immigration pathways clearly. The caller also handled objections well and offered a clear next step by proposing a consultation with the Director of Services. The detailed discussion of eligibility and programs showed good knowledge and personalized service.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details explicitly, which are important to secure the next step. Also, the call ended abruptly without a clear summary of agreements or next steps, which could affect client clarity and commitment.

Sara Habchi Ghanis 08:18 · 10:18 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed information and clearly explaining the immigration pathways and next steps. The explanation of programs and the consultation process was clear and informative, and the caller confirmed contact details and summarized agreements effectively.

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, which could improve conversion rates.

Sara Habchi — 09:11 · 0:51 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the PR services. This provides the lead with context and encourages a callback.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The voicemail was brief and did not include a direct call to action or invitation to leave a message beyond the system prompt.

Sara Habchi — 09:22 · 0:12 0/0

What was good

The caller left a voicemail greeting addressing Anand politely and professionally.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or engagement took place.

Sara Habchi — 09:25 · 1:35 9/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and fees, stating "The consultation would come after this introductory call and it would be paid for $99 Canadian dollars." They successfully locked a specific date and time for the consultation, confirming "I can call you at 11:30."

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 such as citizenship or immigration status. There was no summary of agreements or confirmation of contact details, which are important for clarity and follow-up.

Sara Habchi Glenworth 09:42 · 4:26 14/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a professional tone. She carefully assessed the lead's current immigration status and eligibility, explaining the limitations due to the short time left on the work permit. The caller also presented relevant program options like the Francophone Mobility Program and explained the necessary steps and timelines clearly.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather more personal details such as age, education, and work experience, which could have helped tailor advice better. There was no offer of a paid consultation or attempt to lock in a follow-up appointment, nor were contact details confirmed or a summary provided at the end. Additionally, the caller did not mention the RCIC license or past successful cases, which could have increased credibility.

Sara Habchi Anlin 09:47 · 1:12 8/22

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and named the company, establishing professionalism early. She was polite and respectful of the lead's schedule, offering to transfer the case to a manager who could call at a more convenient time, showing flexibility. The call outcome was a scheduled follow-up, which is a positive step.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about the lead's profile such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR interest. There was no assessment of eligibility or explanation of the process, and no confirmation of contact details or summary of the call. The call was very brief and mainly focused on scheduling rather than advancing the sales process.

Sara Habchi Anton 09:50 · 1:36 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, 'my name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She successfully scheduled a follow-up call with the lead, locking in a specific date and time: 'I will schedule the call for Friday at 1 p.m.' The call ended with a polite summary and confirmation of the appointment.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any personal or immigration details such as citizenship, current status, age, education, or language proficiency. There was no assessment of eligibility or explanation of the immigration process. Contact details were not confirmed, and no objections were addressed. The call was mostly about scheduling a future conversation rather than advancing the sales process.

Sara Habchi — 09:53 · 0:16 0/0

What was good

The caller promptly identified the call as reaching a voicemail, which is appropriate for this situation.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a message after reaching the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.

Sara Habchi — 09:55 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, stating, "this is Sarah from Avero North," and mentioned the reason for the call regarding PR services. The message was concise and professional.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and ended without leaving a message for the lead, missing an opportunity to engage or prompt a callback.

Sara Habchi Arun 10:05 · 1:39 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and identified the company, saying 'my name is Sarah and I am a case manager with Evernoy.' She also confirmed the lead's name as Arun and acknowledged his interest in PR services. The caller was polite and attempted to schedule a better time for the call when Arun said he was busy.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about Arun's immigration status, goals, or background. No eligibility assessment or program presentation was done. The call ended without offering a next step or locking a consultation date. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements. The call was very brief and mostly about scheduling a future call rather than progressing the lead.

Reine Francis — 10:30 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to engage further, respecting the absence of a live lead.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity for any errors or missteps since the call went directly to voicemail and no message was left.

Reine Francis Giovanni 10:34 · 1:24 8/24

What was good

The caller quickly established rapport by greeting Giovanni and confirming his work permit expiry, showing attentiveness to his time constraints. They offered a clear next step by proposing to send details via WhatsApp and asked for confirmation to proceed, which is a good way to keep the lead engaged.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as the client's immigration goals, age, education, and language proficiency, which are essential for assessing eligibility. They also did not present any program options, explain steps or timelines, or summarize agreements, which limits the call's effectiveness in moving the lead forward.

Reine Francis Naysal 10:45 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, referencing the lead's application and prior attempts to contact. The message invites the lead to respond with their interest and availability, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

There is no opportunity to assess the caller's performance on the checklist since this was a voicemail. No message content was inappropriate or misleading, so no issues to report.

Sara Habchi Harish 10:59 · 1:10 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, addressing the lead by name and confirming a follow-up call time of 1:30. She also offered a next step to discuss the PR application in detail, which is a good way to keep the lead engaged.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, and language proficiency. There was no explanation of steps or timelines, no mention of RCIC licensing, and no confirmation of contact details or summary at the end. These omissions reduce the call's effectiveness in moving the lead forward.

Reine Francis — 11:00 · 2:08 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company at the start and quickly identified the lead's immigration status. They were polite and professional throughout the call, clarifying the lead's situation as a refugee and explaining that the company cannot assist in this case.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any other personal details beyond immigration status. They did not assess eligibility, present any programs, or offer next steps. The call ended abruptly without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements, missing opportunities to engage the lead further.

Sara Habchi — 11:02 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating, "This is Sarah from Avernoris."

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and was cut off before a message could be left, so no opportunity to engage or gather information from the lead.

Reine Francis Naeem 11:03 · 8:47 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, addressed the lead by name, and gathered important immigration status and work experience details. They thoroughly explained the consultation process, available programs, and next steps, successfully booking a specific date and time for the consultation.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's age, education, or English/French proficiency, missing opportunities to gather more comprehensive information. There was also no handling of common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues.

Sara Habchi Harsh 11:10 · 0:51 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a polite and professional tone. She successfully scheduled a specific callback time, locking in '11 tomorrow' as agreed with the lead.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to qualify the lead further. No next steps such as offering a paid consultation or confirming contact details were discussed, which limits progress toward conversion.

Sara Habchi — 11:16 · 0:58 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, 'My name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She acknowledged the lead's previous interest in PR services and offered to connect them with another case manager available later in the day.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond PR. No eligibility assessment or program presentation was made, and no specific appointment date or contact details were confirmed. The call ended without summarizing any agreements or next steps clearly.

Reine Francis Natsos 11:17 · 0:31 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. They also invited the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call, which is a good way to encourage engagement.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. The message was brief and did not include a mention of the company's RCIC license or any compliance reassurance, which could improve trust in future messages.

Reine Francis Nazark 11:19 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and referencing the lead's application. The message invited the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call, which is appropriate for this stage.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in conversation or gather information. No errors were made in leaving the message, but no further selling or qualification could be done.

Reine Francis Nathan 11:21 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, introducing themselves and referencing the lead's application. The message included a call to action, asking the lead to respond with a preferred time for discussion.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. The caller did not confirm any details or handle objections, but this is expected in a voicemail scenario.

Reine Francis — 11:25 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left for the lead, missing an opportunity to engage or leave contact details.

Reine Francis — 11:26 · 1:26 6/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company twice, establishing identity early. They also successfully locked in a specific callback time, which is important for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any personal details beyond current status, missing key qualification questions. There was no discussion of goals, eligibility, or next steps, and no summary or confirmation of contact details, resulting in a very limited engagement.

Reine Francis Rahul 11:28 · 7:05 20/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name early on. They explained the next steps and available programs thoroughly, and successfully booked a consultation for Thursday at 1 p.m. via WhatsApp, confirming contact details and summarizing the agreements at the end.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. Also, no objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were addressed, which could have strengthened the call outcome.

Reine Francis — 11:47 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to push the call further. The system message was clear about the customer's voicemail status.

What went wrong

No message was left, so the lead was not engaged or given any information about our services.

Reine Francis Tanya 11:48 · 7:41 14/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a personal connection. They provided detailed information about the consultation process and various immigration pathways, showing good knowledge and professionalism. The caller also confirmed contact details and offered a clear next step with the paid consultation.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for assessing eligibility. They did not lock in a specific appointment time, only promising to confirm later, which may reduce conversion chances. There was no summary of agreements at the end to reinforce the lead's commitment.

Sara Habchi Harid 11:57 · 1:02 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, and confirmed the lead's name as Harid. They also mentioned the PR goal early on, showing focus on the lead's needs.

What went wrong

The call was cut short due to poor connection, preventing any detailed discussion or next steps. The caller did not gather any key information like citizenship, status, or contact details, nor did they handle objections or offer a consultation. The call ended abruptly without locking a date or summarizing agreements.

Sara Habchi Harit 11:58 · 13:16 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed client information and clearly explaining the immigration pathways and next steps. They effectively presented the services and emphasized the role of the RCIC licensed consultant, providing a clear offer for a paid consultation.

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 nor summarize the agreements at the end, which could improve client commitment and clarity.

Reine Francis Seta 12:04 · 1:16 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Seta, identifying themselves and the company, and explaining the reason for the call. The message invites the lead to return the call to discuss next steps, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in conversation or gather information. The caller could have left a more detailed message including a callback number or email to facilitate easier contact, but overall the message was sufficient.

Reine Francis Suhan 12:05 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and referencing the lead's application. This is a good practice to encourage a callback.

What went wrong

No wrong actions noted since this was a voicemail. The message was brief but informative, and no opportunity to engage further was missed.

Reine Francis — 12:07 · 1:14 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and requesting a callback with a preferred time to discuss further. The message was professional and included the caller's name and company.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with the lead or gather any information, so no selling or qualification occurred. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or email to facilitate easier response from the lead.

Reine Francis Noor 12:15 · 0:44 2/6

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and referencing the lead's application. They invited the lead to get back with a preferred time to discuss next steps, which is a good way to encourage engagement.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm any contact details or lock in a specific date and time for a follow-up. There was no summary of agreements since this was a voicemail. More detailed information or encouragement might improve callback rates.

Reine Francis Faisal 12:16 · 1:12 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing Faisal by name and explaining the reason for the call. They mentioned previous attempts to contact via email and phone and requested a callback with a preferred time to discuss next steps.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live conversation, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or more specific instructions to encourage a response.

Reine Francis — 12:17 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and offering alternative contact methods, which is helpful for the lead to respond.

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 the initial voicemail, so no further details were provided.

Sara Habchi Rick 13:07 · 10:48 20/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation with Rick, gathering all relevant information such as immigration status, education, and language proficiency. The caller clearly explained the available programs, next steps, and offered a paid consultation while confirming contact details.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have improved the booking process. Also, no objections were handled, but this was due to the flow of the call rather than a fault.

Sara Habchi Irish 13:29 · 0:43 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and correctly identified the lead by name. She also handled the lead's objection politely when Irish said they were not ready to proceed now, respecting their decision.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about the lead's situation beyond the work permit mention, nor did she present any program details or next steps. There was no attempt to confirm contact details or lock in a follow-up appointment, missing an opportunity to advance the sales process.

data check · 8 calls not matched to a lead · 25 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included