EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Tuesday, 18 August 2026

built 19 Aug 2026, 06:15 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

67 out / 9 in

Leads

new today

Reached

64 answered − 28 vm, 14 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

128

SMS

Follow-up

19 reached, 24 vm, 12 short, 10 missed

Lead→Booked

17.4%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Avishek Chimariya

09:200:26

outgoing no speech

Armando Niño de Rivera

09:230:10

outgoing voicemail

Md Helal Hossen

09:280:08

outgoing too short

Gurpreet Singh

09:310:05

outgoing too short

Sarbjeet Singh

09:320:10

outgoing voicemail

Inderpal Sandhu

09:371:13

outgoing answered

checklist7/24

Jiby Jose

09:430:04

outgoing too short

Deryck Rose

09:4517:07

outgoing answered

checklist14/26

Harmeet Singh

10:050:07

outgoing too short

Harmeet Singh

10:061:07

outgoing answered

checklist6/22

Manthan Patel

10:170:00

outgoing no answer

Parminder Singh

10:200:02

outgoing too short

Jaskaran Singh

10:231:04

outgoing voicemail

Prajith Kumar

10:260:36

outgoing voicemail

Inderpal Sandhu

10:430:06

outgoing too short

Harsh Singh

11:000:09

outgoing too short

Aastha chhetri

11:290:11

outgoing voicemail

2894661244

11:3023:46

incoming answered

Kenny George

12:300:04

outgoing too short

Sarbjeet Singh

12:390:00

incoming no answer

Sarbjeet Singh

12:400:00

incoming no answer

Priyanshu Sangwan

13:000:03

outgoing too short

2894661244

13:010:00

incoming no answer

Priyanshu Sangwan

13:027:08

outgoing answered

checklist23/26

Christian G Doekpar

13:380:02

outgoing too short

+16478352572

13:410:02

outgoing too short

+16475641595

13:450:09

outgoing too short

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

Muhammad Haris

09:430:05

outgoing too short

Solomon Koomson

09:450:24

outgoing voicemail

Trevante Dailey

09:500:04

outgoing too short

Andrew Valenzuela

09:530:22

outgoing voicemail

Mahamad Mustapha

09:540:26

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Ernest Ovbiolokun

09:561:00

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Seun Oyewusi

09:580:58

outgoing voicemail

Saad Ahmed Salim

10:000:31

outgoing voicemail

Saneen Azad

10:020:19

outgoing voicemail

Roshan Sharma

10:1511:14

outgoing answered

checklist23/26

Harjot Ghatora

10:453:24

outgoing answered

checklist14/26

RICO DE LOS REYES

10:510:29

outgoing voicemail

Omachonu Ufedo Julius

10:537:30

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂

11:030:00

outgoing no answer

𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂

11:032:32

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Sarvesh Giri

11:100:32

outgoing voicemail

Samuel

11:130:26

outgoing voicemail

Samuel

11:146:17

incoming answered

Kevin Morgan

11:250:00

outgoing no answer

Kevin Morgan

11:250:00

outgoing no answer

Kevin Morgan

11:250:00

outgoing no answer

Navjot Singh

11:277:31

outgoing answered

checklist12/26

Dilbar Hussain

11:380:34

outgoing voicemail

Sukhwinder Singh Deol

11:420:47

outgoing voicemail

Kishan Rana

11:430:21

outgoing voicemail

2892990235

12:040:00

incoming no answer

Ragius

12:200:29

outgoing voicemail

+19053513998

12:221:04

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Md Zahurul Islam Zayed

12:250:48

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Anand Miglani

12:270:25

outgoing voicemail

Dev

12:300:23

outgoing voicemail

Ewere Monday

12:322:01

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Gurpal Singh

12:350:34

outgoing voicemail

Ibrahim Dauda

12:370:32

outgoing voicemail

Ishmael Afful

12:380:25

outgoing voicemail

Mr Chizzy

12:390:32

outgoing voicemail

N A E E M

12:410:24

outgoing voicemail

Noah Rajeev

12:423:33

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Prabhjot Singh

12:480:24

outgoing voicemail

Prakash Dandhi

12:500:52

outgoing voicemail

Prince Prince

12:510:59

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Rahul Verma

12:530:30

outgoing voicemail

Ramanjeet Singh

12:542:44

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Ashbin Chalaune

12:571:56

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 23 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

Reception-Calls

SMM-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 4 of 23 leads called

Fastest

136 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

221 min on the clock

Slowest

223 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

646 min on the clock

median 222 min · 19 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	3	32	7	21.9%	0	3	100.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	4	44	15	34.1%	1	0	0.0%
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

47/116

40.5%

08:00–10:00

60/170

35.3%

10:00–12:00

103/299

34.4%

16:00–18:00 worst

5/15

33.3%

average 35.7% over 605 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	32	1:17:10	7:16:31	06:29	13:45	103
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	0
Reine Francis	44	52:59	3:14:26	09:43	12:57	87
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 19 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Bharat Chavda	02:52	—	—	no call	—
Humberto Maza Culebro	09:20	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Aayan Stha	09:26	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Aditya	11:58	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Daniil Rozovaikin	14:24	—	—	no call	—
Nilax Solanki	14:34	—	—	no call	—
Abdul khadar Mohammad	14:34	—	—	no call	—
Moses Amoo	14:46	—	—	no call	—
Jagroop Singh	14:46	—	—	no call	—
Nnamdi Okakpu	15:10	—	—	no call	—
Erwin Nolledo	15:38	—	—	no call	—
Michael Onyarin	16:30	—	—	no call	—
Ashbin Chalaune	16:33	—	—	no call	—
Alvaro Andres Carreño Cornejo	17:21	—	—	no call	—
Chirag Sehgal	17:25	—	—	no call	—
Harman Gill	22:07	—	—	no call	—
Komalpreet Singh	23:09	—	—	no call	—
Vipul Choudhary	23:16	—	—	no call	—
Bipandeep Kaur	23:22	—	—	no call	—
Kishan Rana	00:57	11:43 (0:21)	Reine Francis	223 min	voicemail
Sukhwinder Singh Deol	04:29	11:42 (0:47)	Reine Francis	222 min	voicemail
Prajith Kumar	04:50	10:26 (0:36)	Sara Habchi	147 min	voicemail
Roshan Sharma	06:35	10:15 (11:14)	Reine Francis	136 min	23/26

Booked consultations 4 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Avishek Chimariya	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	16 Aug 20:59	07:50
Vansh Bhalla	Web-Organic	Sara Habchi	12 May 09:42	09:10
Honey Singh	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	01 Apr 22:06	14:00
Tirthak Bhingaradiya	Yana-Referral	Ecaterina Andoni	17 Aug 12:28	15:01

SMS 113 sent · 15 received · 52 contacts

Reply rate

17.6%

9 of 51 conversations

Median reply

6 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	36	5	17	16	4	25.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	3	1	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	77	7	37	35	5	14.3%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 6 conversations where the client wrote last

Roshan Sharma 07:13 · Reine Francis 1006 min

10AM

Nischal Acharya 08:23 · Reine Francis 936 min

Wrong number

Priyanshu Sangwan 09:26 · Sara Habchi 873 min

Thanks

Nilax Solanki 14:35 · Reine Francis 564 min

12pm - 6pm

Erwin Nolledo 15:40 · Reine Francis 500 min

5pm-9pm

Jaskaran Singh 16:52 · Anshuman Mishra 427 min

i got this msg but not sure what to do

Call reviews 48 of 22 live conversations

Sara Habchi Sahil 06:29 · 13:53 19/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Sahil, confirming his status and goals clearly and presenting tailored immigration pathways. The explanation of programs and next steps was detailed and informative, showing good knowledge and care.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking Sahil's age, did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself', and failed to lock a specific consultation date or confirm contact details. Also, there was no summary of agreements at the call's end, which could improve clarity and commitment.

Sara Habchi Dax 06:54 · 12:56 19/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good rapport. She thoroughly gathered detailed information about the lead's status, education, language skills, and work experience, and provided tailored advice on suitable immigration programs. The caller also explained next steps and offered a paid consultation with an RCIC licensed consultant, maintaining compliance by avoiding any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking the lead's age, which is important for eligibility assessment. She did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could risk losing the lead. Also, there was no summary of agreements at the end to reinforce the next steps clearly.

Sara Habchi — 09:20 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead and identified herself and the company name as 'Sarah from Evernorth.'

What went wrong

The call was very short and there was no two-way communication; the caller could not hear the lead and the lead did not respond, so no information was gathered or sales steps completed.

Sara Habchi — 09:23 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call reached voicemail promptly, allowing for a message to be left if desired.

What went wrong

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

Sara Habchi — 09:32 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly, indicating correct dialing.

What went wrong

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

Sara Habchi — 09:37 · 1:13 7/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and identified the company, saying, "my name is Sarah and I am a case manager with Evernorth." She also successfully scheduled a follow-up call, locking in a specific date and time at 12:45. No illegal promises were made during the call.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or gather any information about their situation or goals. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or next steps beyond scheduling another call. Contact details were not confirmed, and the call ended without summarizing agreements, missing key opportunities to engage the lead further.

Sara Habchi Derek 09:45 · 17:07 14/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good rapport. She provided detailed information about the immigration pathways, eligibility, and timelines, showing good knowledge and tailoring the conversation to Derek's situation. The caller avoided making any illegal promises, maintaining compliance throughout the call.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's age and education, which are important for eligibility assessment. There was no mention of the RCIC license or past successful cases, which could build trust. The call ended without offering a next step such as a paid consultation or locking in a follow-up appointment, and contact details were not confirmed or summarized.

Reine Francis — 09:45 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to proceed without a live person.

What went wrong

No message was left, missing an opportunity to leave a brief introduction or callback information.

Reine Francis Andrew 09:53 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message included a call to action to book a consultation, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information from the lead. No errors were made in the voicemail itself.

Reine Francis Rashi Evernord 09:54 · 0:26 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and offered a next step by asking the lead to contact via WhatsApp, showing initiative to proceed with the consultation.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any meaningful engagement or information gathering. The caller did not ask about the lead's situation or explain the process, missing key opportunities to build rapport and qualify the lead.

Reine Francis Ernest 09:56 · 1:00 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and identified the company, saying "This is Ren Francis, team leader at Evernorth." They also asked for the lead's name and confirmed it as Ernest, establishing a personal connection. The caller offered a next step by proposing to book a consultation and suggested WhatsApp for follow-up, which is a good way to keep communication open.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any probing questions about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, missing many key qualification steps. No specific date or time for the consultation was locked, and there was no summary of what was agreed upon. The caller did not handle any objections or explain the process, which would be important to move the lead forward.

Reine Francis Sean 09:58 · 0:58 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Sean, referencing prior WhatsApp communication and encouraging prompt contact. The message included a suggestion to book a consultation and mentioned availability, which is helpful for the lead.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller did not leave detailed information about next steps beyond a general invitation to book, which limits lead engagement.

Reine Francis Saab 10:00 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing prior communication on WhatsApp. The message included a call to action, asking the lead to respond to proceed.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or follow the sales checklist. No errors were made in the voicemail itself.

Reine Francis Sonia 10:02 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and requesting a callback to book a consultation. The message was polite and to the point, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification was possible. The caller could consider leaving a slightly more detailed message to encourage a callback.

Sara Habchi Harmeet 10:06 · 1:07 6/22

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and confirmed the lead's name accurately. She successfully rescheduled the call and locked in a specific date and time, ensuring clarity on the next contact.

What went wrong

The caller missed the opportunity to gather any immigration-related information or discuss the lead's goals and eligibility. No next steps or contact details were confirmed, and no summary was provided at the end. This call was purely administrative without any sales engagement.

Reine Francis Prabhat 10:15 · 11:14 23/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and engaged in a thorough conversation with Prabhat, covering his background and immigration goals. They explained the immigration options well and handled objections professionally, offering a clear next step with a paid consultation. The caller also confirmed contact details and summarized the agreements effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's English or French language proficiency, which is important for assessing eligibility. Additionally, they did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have helped secure the next step more firmly.

Sara Habchi Jessica 10:23 · 1:04 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company in the voicemail, stating, "This is Sarah from Evernorth." She also referenced the lead's form submission, which is good for context.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live conversation, no selling or qualification could take place. The caller did not leave a detailed message encouraging a callback or offering next steps, which could have improved the chance of engagement.

Sara Habchi Brigitte 10:26 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and referenced the lead's submitted form, which is good for context.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail greeting only; no message was left for the lead to encourage a callback or engagement.

Reine Francis Harsha 10:45 · 3:24 14/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing rapport. They explained the consultation process well and highlighted the RCIC license, which builds trust. The caller also offered a clear next step with a paid consultation and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a thorough assessment. They did not handle common objections or lock in a specific appointment time, which could reduce conversion chances. Also, there was no summary of agreements at the end to reinforce next steps.

Reine Francis — 10:51 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating the purpose related to the lead's application.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or engagement occurred. No message was left for the lead to prompt a callback.

Reine Francis Ren 10:53 · 7:30 22/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name and immigration status early on. They provided detailed explanations of the programs and next steps, including the consultation process and fees, and effectively handled the 'I'll think about it' objection by offering to send information and scheduling a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's age, education, and work experience, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. While the call was overall professional, probing these areas would have strengthened the consultation and tailored advice.

Reine Francis Nixia 11:03 · 2:32 13/26

What was good

The caller successfully introduced themselves and the company, and confirmed the lead's name early on. They secured a specific follow-up appointment and confirmed contact details, ensuring a clear next step with the lead.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather key information such as citizenship, age, education, language skills, or work experience, nor did they assess eligibility or explain the immigration process. The conversation lacked depth in qualifying the lead and presenting the program details.

Reine Francis Sergei 11:10 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing prior contact. The message included a call to action to book a call and 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, so no further actions could be taken during this call.

Reine Francis Samuel 11:13 · 0:26 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. The message invites the lead to return the call to schedule a discussion, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification was possible. The message could have been slightly more detailed about next steps to encourage a callback, but overall it was adequate.

Reine Francis Navjot 11:27 · 7:31 12/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good connection. They provided detailed information about the consultation process and various immigration pathways, including mentioning the RCIC license, which adds credibility. The caller also offered a clear next step with a paid consultation and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. They also did not secure a specific appointment date and time, only suggesting a tentative booking. Additionally, the call ended without summarizing the agreements or handling common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.'

Sara Habchi — 11:29 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The caller identified themselves clearly as Asta Chatri before the voicemail greeting started.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a message or attempt to engage the lead, resulting in a missed opportunity to connect.

Reine Francis Barbara 11:38 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message invited the lead to respond with a suitable time to discuss next steps, which is a good approach to encourage engagement.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no direct interaction occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message could have been improved by briefly mentioning the purpose of the call or the benefits of contacting us to increase the chance of a callback.

Reine Francis Sukhwinder Singh 11:42 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message identifying themselves and explaining the reason for the call. They provided their availability and contact options, which is helpful for the lead to respond.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have been slightly more concise to respect the lead's time.

Reine Francis — 11:43 · 0:21 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.

Reine Francis Ragius 12:20 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them of previous contact. The message was polite and encouraged the lead to respond when ready.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves fully with company details beyond a first name and a partial company name, which could be clearer. Also, no contact details or next steps were offered in the voicemail message.

Reine Francis — 12:22 · 1:04 3/26

What was good

The caller maintained a polite and patient tone, respecting the lead's situation and confirming communication via WhatsApp. They ensured to keep the door open for follow-up without pressure, saying "I will update you on WhatsApp, please."

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions or discuss the client's goals or status. The call was essentially a follow-up with no sales effort or next steps offered, missing many checklist items.

Reine Francis MT 12:25 · 0:48 3/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by referencing a previous conversation and encouraged moving forward, showing persistence and awareness of the lead's situation.

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 ended abruptly without confirming details or summarizing agreements.

Reine Francis Anans 12:27 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Anans, inviting a response about booking a consultation. The message was concise and professional, maintaining a respectful tone.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or gather information from the lead. The caller did not leave specific contact details or a callback number, which could have improved the chance of a return call.

Reine Francis Deb 12:30 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, reminding Deb to get back to book a consultation. The message was concise and professional, mentioning the previous discussion and the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were completed. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or more specific instructions to improve the chance of a response.

Reine Francis — 12:32 · 2:01 6/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and offered the next step of a paid consultation, confirming contact details via WhatsApp. The caller was polite and patient despite the lead's distractions and delays.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or gather any personal or immigration details such as citizenship, status, goals, or eligibility. There was no explanation of the process or timelines, nor was a specific appointment date or time locked in. The call was mostly a follow-up reminder rather than a full consultation or assessment.

Reine Francis — 12:35 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message reminding the lead to respond about booking a consultation, which is professional and respectful.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No message content was left that could advance the sale beyond a reminder.

Reine Francis Abraham 12:37 · 0:32 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 included a call to action, asking the lead to get back with a preferred time for a call and readiness to book a consultation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification could take place in this call.

Reine Francis — 12:38 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no live person answering.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Tizzy 12:39 · 0:32 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 invites the lead to respond either way, which is respectful and professional.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or advance the sales process. No message was left beyond the voicemail greeting and a brief follow-up note, so no further action was taken to secure a consultation.

Reine Francis — 12:41 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly and the system message was clear.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Noel 12:42 · 3:33 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a personal connection. They explained the consultation process and fee transparently, including the benefits and next steps, which helps set clear expectations. The caller also confirmed contact methods and encouraged the lead to proceed when ready, maintaining a professional tone throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather key information such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, and language proficiency, which are critical for assessing eligibility. They did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation or summarize the agreements at the end, which could lead to ambiguity. Additionally, there was no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases to build trust and credibility.

Reine Francis — 12:48 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached a voicemail service that was not initialized and ended the call promptly.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to leave a brief introduction or callback information.

Reine Francis Prakash 12:50 · 0:52 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the purpose of the call. The message encouraged the lead to respond if interested, which is appropriate for a follow-up call.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification occurred. The message could be slightly more concise to respect the lead's time.

Reine Francis — 12:51 · 0:59 5/26

What was good

The caller maintained a polite and professional tone and successfully offered a next step by encouraging the lead to book a consultation and confirming WhatsApp as the contact method.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions about the lead's situation or goals. There was no attempt to lock a specific date or summarize agreements, which missed opportunities to advance the sale.

Reine Francis — 12:53 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message explaining the purpose and requested a callback about booking a consultation for Thursday. The message was polite and concise.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller did not leave detailed information about next steps beyond the callback request.

Reine Francis Anantit 12:54 · 2:44 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a connection. They offered to send the invoice and agreement and confirmed contact details, showing good follow-up intent.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any immigration-related information such as the lead's goals, status, or eligibility, missing a key opportunity to assess and present suitable programs. They also failed to lock in a specific consultation date and time, leaving the lead undecided without a firm next step.

Reine Francis Ruan 12:57 · 1:56 6/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced himself and the company, and confirmed the lead's name early in the call. The goal of permanent residence was mentioned, which shows some focus on the lead's needs.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any meaningful qualification or presentation of services. The caller did not explore the lead's situation beyond the job update, nor did they offer a next step or confirm contact details. There was no handling of objections or explanation of the process, missing key opportunities to engage the lead.

Sara Habchi Priyamshu 13:02 · 7:08 23/26

What was good

The caller effectively gathered detailed information and clearly explained the Francophone Mobility program and timelines, showing good knowledge and care. They handled the lead's concerns well and arranged a follow-up call after the exam results, saying, "How about we schedule a call after my results come in."

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the next call, which could lead to scheduling uncertainty. Also, the 'I'll do it myself' objection was not addressed, though it may not have arisen.

data check · 7 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads without a phone number · 16 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included