EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Thursday, 20 August 2026

built 21 Aug 2026, 06:14 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
78
70 out / 8 in
Leads
17
new today
Reached
24
53 answered − 24 vm, 5 short
Qualified
1
good status
Booked
4
moved to 1.4
Messages
121
SMS
Follow-up
70
23 reached, 20 vm, 5 short, 22 missed
Lead→Booked
23.5%
daily rate

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

070911131517192123
Sara
Guillermo Andres Granadillo Ehrhardt
09:120:24
outgoing voicemail
Reindolf Nkrumah
09:140:00
outgoing no answer
Ayrton Quinn
09:190:49
outgoing voicemail
Krish Nakamra
09:219:39
outgoing answered
checklist22/26
Piyush Mehta
09:320:53
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Karan Saini
09:340:49
outgoing voicemail
Salman Ahmed
09:360:31
outgoing voicemail
Sudipto Chatterjee
09:403:06
outgoing answered
checklist16/26
Amber Sharda
10:0310:53
outgoing answered
checklist21/24
Piyush Mehta
10:2910:54
outgoing answered
checklist20/25
Dev
10:460:00
outgoing no answer
Humberto Maza Culebro
10:540:00
outgoing no answer
Vicky
11:100:00
outgoing no answer
Prabhat Thapa
11:300:04
outgoing too short
Reindolf Nkrumah
11:430:31
outgoing no speech
Reindolf Nkrumah
11:449:03
outgoing answered
checklist21/24
Kunal Dua
11:551:15
outgoing answered
checklist8/24
Jagroop Singh
12:280:11
outgoing voicemail
Jagroop Singh
12:300:06
outgoing too short
Jagroop Singh
12:339:34
incoming answered
Biram Prasad Khatiwada
13:0111:50
outgoing answered
checklist21/24
Kunal Dua
13:173:02
outgoing answered
checklist10/26
Kunal Dua
13:200:05
outgoing too short
Kunal Dua
13:2215:07
outgoing answered
checklist19/26
Aniket Vadsariya
13:390:07
outgoing too short
Kunal Seth
14:181:09
outgoing answered
checklist10/24
Anshuman
no calls
Reine
Jewel Joseph
09:021:15
outgoing voicemail
Manpreet Singh
09:060:00
outgoing no answer
Manpreet Singh
09:060:43
outgoing voicemail
Akshat Luthra
09:081:14
outgoing voicemail
Rudra Thakkar
09:090:29
outgoing voicemail
Sudheep Thatikayala
09:108:39
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
Rudra Thakkar
09:250:00
incoming no answer
Amrith Sreedhar
09:270:29
outgoing voicemail
JAI KHATRI
09:281:11
outgoing voicemail
Rudra Thakkar
09:300:05
outgoing too short
Rudra Thakkar
09:327:08
incoming answered
Amrith Sreedhar
09:530:00
incoming no answer
Dilbar Hussain
10:009:23
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
Neeraj
10:159:02
outgoing answered
checklist23/26
Aryan Dutta
10:302:24
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Rahul Kumar Nelakurthi
10:331:06
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Anand Miglani
10:350:00
outgoing no answer
Anand Miglani
10:350:00
outgoing no answer
Dev
10:360:00
outgoing no answer
Dev
10:370:00
outgoing no answer
Mr Chizzy
10:370:00
outgoing no answer
Dev
10:460:00
outgoing no answer
Mr Chizzy
10:460:00
outgoing no answer
N A E E M
10:470:00
outgoing no answer
Rahul Verma
10:470:00
outgoing no answer
Rahul Verma
10:480:00
outgoing no answer
Saad Ahmed Salim
10:480:00
outgoing no answer
Prince Prince
10:490:00
outgoing no answer
Ishmael Afful
11:070:53
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Trevante Dailey
11:090:30
outgoing voicemail
Navjot Singh
11:120:25
outgoing voicemail
Dev
11:160:22
outgoing voicemail
Mr Chizzy
11:170:28
outgoing voicemail
N A E E M
11:190:24
outgoing voicemail
Rahul Verma
11:200:27
outgoing voicemail
Harjot Ghatora
11:210:31
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂
11:220:49
outgoing answered
checklist2/26
Roshan Sharma
11:240:00
outgoing no answer
Roshan Sharma
11:240:00
outgoing no answer
MD ARIFUL ISLAM RAFI
11:261:22
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Samuel
11:300:42
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Prince Prince
11:320:24
outgoing voicemail
2892990235
11:340:00
incoming no answer
Saad Ahmed Salim
11:360:18
outgoing voicemail
Ernest Ovbiolokun
11:370:38
outgoing voicemail
+14375664225
11:450:33
outgoing voicemail
+14374367396
11:470:22
outgoing voicemail
+4375664225
11:540:00
incoming no answer
Parth
12:155:34
outgoing answered
checklist13/26
Jagroop Singh
12:250:00
incoming no answer
Mr Chizzy
12:310:20
outgoing voicemail
Jewel Joseph
13:290:00
incoming no answer
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 17 total

Meta-Form-PGWP
12
Landing-PGWP
3
Reception-Calls
1
Web-Organic
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 3 of 17 leads called

Fastest
70 min
Reine Francis 08:00–14:00
479 min on the clock
Slowest
89 min
Reine Francis 08:00–14:00
219 min on the clock
median 88 min · 14 leads never called

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 0 26 12 46.2% 0 1 0.0%
Anshuman Mishra 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
Reine Francis 3 52 12 23.1% 1 2 66.7%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
17
Contacted
62
Qualified
1
Consultations
4

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

12:00–14:00 best connect
55/140
39.3%
16:00–18:00
5/15
33.3%
10:00–12:00
104/325
32.0%
08:00–10:00 worst
50/181
27.6%
average 32.4% over 667 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
2
Qualified
1
In progress (contacted)
12
New / no activity
2

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 26 1:26:25 5:05:56 09:12 14:18 92
Anshuman Mishra 0 0:00 — — — 0
Reine Francis 52 47:33 4:26:15 09:02 13:29 112
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 14 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
Ho Yu Hoy Papas 08:18 — — no call —
Brown kenrick 08:25 — — no call —
Syed Nawaz 12:40 — — no call —
Shivam Jakhar 13:26 — — no call —
Ashish Johnson 13:54 — — no call —
Sagar Lama 14:03 — — no call —
Abdul Qadir 14:03 — — no call —
Conrado R. Valdez II 15:09 — — no call —
Lasana 15:18 — — no call —
Ginto Tom 17:04 — — no call —
Opeyemi Agbola 19:47 — — no call —
Ricardo Singh 20:47 — — no call —
Edward 20:58 — — no call —
Yousuf Porosh 21:42 — — no call —
JAI KHATRI 05:49 09:28 (1:11) Reine Francis 89 min voicemail
Amrith Sreedhar 02:46 09:27 (0:29) Reine Francis 88 min voicemail
Sudheep Thatikayala 01:10 09:10 (8:39) Reine Francis 70 min 18/26

Booked consultations 4 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Chinonye Nwankwo Client-Referall Reine Francis 08 Aug 10:05 08:56
Neeraj Meta-Form-PGWP Reine Francis 14 Aug 23:05 12:21
Vijay Surya Landing-PGWP Sara Habchi 30 Apr 23:42 14:10
Nikita Korsakov Yana-Referral Ecaterina Andoni 18 Aug 18:03 18:22

SMS 111 sent · 10 received · 50 contacts

Reply rate
14.3%
7 of 49 conversations
Median reply
17 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 27 5 13 12 2 16.7%
Anshuman Mishra 0 1 1 0 0 0.0%
Reine Francis 84 4 37 37 5 13.5%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 7 conversations where the client wrote last

Dax Patel 10:30 · Sara Habchi 810 min
Thank you 🙂
Mr Chizzy 11:35 · Reine Francis 745 min
Hi Reine Please can you call back. I had an impromptu work call.
N A E E M 11:50 · Reine Francis 730 min
Hey Reine im going to pause this for now ill let you know when im ready to book the appointment
Aniket Vadsariya 13:39 · Sara Habchi 620 min
Can you call back later?
Ashish Johnson 13:55 · Reine Francis 605 min
6am to 2pm
Ginto Tom 17:07 · Anshuman Mishra 412 min
6AM-2PM
Yousuf Porosh 21:44 · Reine Francis 136 min
3pm

Call reviews 46 of 24 live conversations

Reine Francis Jewel 09:02 · 1:15 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating, "Ren Francis, team leader at Evernorth," and referenced the official website. This provides legitimacy and context for the lead to respond later.

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. Leaving a message was appropriate, but no direct selling or qualification could occur.
Reine Francis Nampreez 09:06 · 0:43 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 included a call to action to respond via WhatsApp or message to schedule a call.

What went wrong

No issues with the voicemail; however, no live conversation occurred so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further.
Reine Francis — 09:08 · 1:14 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company twice, providing the website and reason for the call. The message was polite and encouraged the lead to respond to schedule a call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. Leaving a voicemail was appropriate, but no further selling or qualification could be done.
Reine Francis Raja 09:09 · 0:29 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 respond at their convenience, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage the lead in conversation or gather information, but the voicemail message could have been slightly more detailed to encourage a callback, such as mentioning a next step or consultation offer.
Reine Francis Steve 09:10 · 8:39 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name and current immigration status. They explained the next steps thoroughly, presented relevant programs, and offered a paid consultation while securing a specific follow-up date. The caller also confirmed contact details and summarized the agreements well.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's citizenship, age, education, English/French proficiency, and did not assess eligibility or points during the call. There was no handling of common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' These gaps could limit the depth of the consultation preparation.
Sara Habchi Andreas 09:12 · 0:24 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.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief and did not include a direct call to action or next steps.
Sara Habchi — 09:19 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail identifying herself and the company, mentioning the lead's interest in permanent residency services. This provides a professional and informative message for the lead to respond to.

What went wrong

The call ended as a voicemail with no opportunity to engage the lead directly or gather information. No next steps or consultation offers could be made due to the lead's unavailability.
Sara Habchi Krish 09:21 · 9:39 22/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed key details with the lead, Krish, including immigration status, education, and language skills. She provided a thorough explanation of the available programs and next steps, including the paid consultation and pricing, and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation despite the lead expressing interest. Also, common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not explicitly addressed during the call.
Reine Francis Amrit 09:27 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback to schedule a call.

What went wrong

No issues with the voicemail; it was concise and professional. No message was left beyond the brief introduction and callback request, which is appropriate for this situation.
Reine Francis Sia 09:28 · 1:11 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, and mentioned the lead's application on the official website. The message was polite and encouraged the lead to get back to discuss next steps.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live conversation, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. Leaving a message was appropriate, but no selling or information gathering occurred.
Sara Habchi Piyush 09:32 · 0:53 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, saying 'this is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She successfully locked a specific callback time at 10:30, ensuring a follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any immigration details such as citizenship, status, goals, or eligibility, nor did she present any program information or offer a paid consultation. Contact details were not confirmed, and no summary of agreements was provided before ending the call.
Sara Habchi — 09:34 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly left a polite and professional voicemail message, introducing herself and referencing the lead's interest in PR services.

What went wrong

The call ended as a voicemail with no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information, so no selling or qualification occurred.
Sara Habchi Salomon Ahmed 09:36 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and left a polite, concise message for the lead, mentioning the PR interest and inviting a callback.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, the caller had no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. No issues with the message content, but no selling or qualification could occur.
Sara Habchi Siddhartha 09:40 · 3:06 16/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and addressed the lead by name, establishing rapport early. She effectively assessed the lead's current immigration status and eligibility, clarifying the LMIA situation and PR prospects. The caller also successfully scheduled a specific follow-up appointment, securing a commitment for the next step.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's citizenship, age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for a full assessment. There was no explanation of the steps and timelines involved, nor was the RCIC license or past success mentioned to build trust. Contact details were not confirmed, and the call ended without summarizing the agreements made.
Reine Francis — 10:00 · 9:23 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, clearly explaining the consultation process and available immigration pathways. They effectively secured a consultation appointment and confirmed contact details, ensuring next steps were clear to the lead.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking for the lead's age and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. Also, they did not summarize the agreements at the end of the call to reinforce understanding and commitment.
Sara Habchi Amber 10:03 · 10:53 21/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation with Amber, confirming her background and clearly explaining the PR pathways and next steps. They carefully assessed eligibility and presented tailored options, including trades and French language pathways, while maintaining compliance by avoiding any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end of the call. These missed opportunities could reduce the chance of securing the lead's commitment promptly.
Reine Francis Eleanor 10:15 · 9:02 23/26

What was good

The caller engaged in a thorough conversation, gathering detailed information and clearly explaining options and timelines. They successfully booked a consultation for Monday at 6 p.m. and confirmed contact details, ensuring next steps were clear.

What went wrong

The caller did not mention the RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could build trust. Also, they missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Otherwise, the call was well managed.
Sara Habchi Piyush 10:29 · 10:54 20/25

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Piyush, confirming detailed information about his status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the PR pathways, eligibility criteria, and next steps, including the paid consultation, and ensured contact details were confirmed.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age and did not summarize the agreements at the end of the call. Also, they did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' and failed to lock a specific date and time for the consultation.
Reine Francis — 10:30 · 2:24 3/26

What was good

The caller was polite and empathetic, acknowledging the lead's situation with kindness, saying 'get well soon' and offering to keep the application open. The caller maintained a respectful tone and left the door open for future contact.

What went wrong

The caller did not attempt to gather any qualifying information or advance the sales process beyond a brief check-in. There was no effort to confirm details, present programs, or secure a next step, resulting in a missed opportunity to engage the lead further.
Reine Francis — 10:33 · 1:06 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, establishing continuity by referencing a previous discussion. They successfully arranged a specific follow-up date, September 1, securing a commitment to reconnect.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather essential client information such as the client's name, immigration status, and goals. There was no attempt to present services, explain processes, or offer a paid consultation, which limited the call's effectiveness.
Reine Francis — 11:07 · 0:53 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully secured a follow-up appointment by confirming a specific date and time, saying 'On Friday... tomorrow, basically.' They also clearly explained the payment requirement and next steps, addressing the lead's readiness to pay.

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 such as immigration status or goals. The call lacked any discussion of eligibility, programs, or RCIC credentials, which are important for building trust and advancing the sales process.
Reine Francis Serancy 11:09 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them about the consultation. The message was polite and concise, making it easy for the lead to understand the purpose and respond if interested.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or advance the sales process. No next steps or contact confirmations could be made.
Reine Francis — 11:12 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller reached a voicemail and the system message was clear about the customer's voicemail not being initialized.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or leave a callback instruction was taken.
Reine Francis — 11:16 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message asking Rob to get back to schedule a consultation.

What went wrong

No conversation took place, so no opportunity to assess or engage the lead beyond leaving a message.
Reine Francis — 11:17 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and explaining 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 direct call to action or contact details for a callback.
Reine Francis — 11:19 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly and the system message was clear about the customer's voicemail status.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so no opportunity to engage or leave contact details was taken.
Reine Francis — 11:20 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail reminding the lead about the consultation booking and asking for a response.

What went wrong

No issues with the voicemail; it was concise and to the point. No message was left beyond the reminder, so no additional information was provided.
Reine Francis — 11:21 · 0:31 3/26

What was good

The caller identified themselves and the company clearly at the start, saying, 'this is Rads, can be there at EverNorth.' They also respected the lead's time by acknowledging they were busy and accepted a callback.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not include any questions about the client's situation or needs. The caller did not attempt to engage the lead further or offer a next step, missing an opportunity to advance the sales process.
Reine Francis — 11:22 · 0:49 2/26

What was good

The caller politely followed up on the previous email and offered to resend it, showing attentiveness to the lead's needs.

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 was very brief and lacked any meaningful engagement or sales effort beyond resending an email.
Reine Francis Hamad 11:26 · 1:22 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, stating 'I'm the team leader at Evernorth.' They also confirmed the lead's name as Hamad and maintained polite communication throughout the brief call.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather important information such as the lead's immigration goals, status, and eligibility. No next steps were secured, and the lead asked to be contacted later by email, which was not confirmed or scheduled during the call.
Reine Francis — 11:30 · 0:42 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, establishing the context by referencing a prior conversation. They respectfully confirmed the lead's decision and closed the call politely with 'Okay, good day.'

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to engage the lead further by not asking any qualifying questions or offering next steps. There was no attempt to handle objections or confirm contact details, resulting in a very brief and unproductive call.
Reine Francis — 11:32 · 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

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to briefly introduce the company and encourage a callback.
Reine Francis — 11:36 · 0:18 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.
Reine Francis — 11:37 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message encouraging the lead to book a consultation.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with the lead directly since the call went to voicemail, so no selling or qualification was possible.
Sara Habchi — 11:43 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to engage the lead by asking to disconnect Bluetooth for better audio clarity, showing concern for communication quality.

What went wrong

The call was too short and unclear to conduct any meaningful conversation or sales process. No introduction or information gathering occurred, and the lead's voice was barely audible, preventing progress.
Sara Habchi Randolph 11:44 · 9:03 21/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, confirming Randolph's details and explaining the process thoroughly. She assessed eligibility carefully and presented a suitable program, explaining steps and timelines well. The consultation offer was clear with payment details and contact methods confirmed.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask Randolph's age, which is important for eligibility assessment. Also, no specific date and time for the consultation was locked during the call, only a promise to book after payment. There were no explicit objections handled for 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself', though these may not have arisen.
Reine Francis — 11:45 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message inviting the lead to get back when ready to start.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. No contact details or lead name were obtained.
Reine Francis — 11:47 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and encouraging a response to move forward with the application.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message could have been more detailed about next steps or contact information.
Sara Habchi Kunal 11:55 · 1:15 8/24

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 also addressed the lead by name and successfully scheduled a specific callback time at 1:15 p.m., locking in the next step.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's background such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR interest. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or next steps like a paid consultation. Contact details were not confirmed, and the call ended without summarizing agreements.
Reine Francis Faris 12:15 · 5:34 13/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the next steps and consultation details, mentioning the RCIC license and various program options like Canadian Experience Class and Provincial Nominee Program. They also offered a paid consultation and tried to schedule a specific date, confirming WhatsApp contact for document exchange.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask about the lead's citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, or work experience. There was no eligibility assessment or summary of agreements at the end, which are important for a thorough consultation call.
Sara Habchi — 12:28 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.
Reine Francis — 12:31 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message with a polite request to return the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place.
Sara Habchi Biram 13:01 · 11:50 21/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming the lead's details and explaining the immigration pathways clearly. They provided detailed information about eligibility, programs, and next steps, including the paid consultation offer, which shows good control of the sales process.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end of the call. These missed steps could reduce the chance of securing the booking immediately.
Sara Habchi Kunal 13:17 · 3:02 10/26

What was good

The caller engaged well with the lead, asking relevant questions about immigration status, age, education, and work experience, such as confirming the PGWP status and diploma details. The caller was polite and maintained a friendly tone throughout the call.

What went wrong

The call was cut short due to technical issues before the caller could present programs, explain next steps, or offer a consultation. Important checklist items like eligibility assessment, objection handling, and confirming contact details were not addressed. The caller should ensure stable connection and complete the call to cover all necessary points.
Sara Habchi Kunal 13:22 · 15:07 19/26

What was good

The caller engaged well with Kunal, confirming detailed information about his work experience and immigration status. They clearly explained the PR pathways and next steps, including the RCIP program and trades options, showing good knowledge and personalization.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the client's age and education, which are important for eligibility assessment. Also, no specific consultation date was locked and contact details were not confirmed, which could affect follow-up efficiency.
Sara Habchi Kunal 14:18 · 1:09 10/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and named the company, establishing credibility early with 'my name is Sarah and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She confirmed the lead's name and interest in PR services, then successfully scheduled a specific date and time for a follow-up call, locking in the next step effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any detailed information about the lead's background such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, or language skills, missing an opportunity to assess eligibility or tailor the service. There was no discussion of the process, timelines, or RCIC credentials, and contact details were not confirmed. The call was very brief and focused mainly on scheduling rather than qualifying or informing the lead.
data check · 4 calls not matched to a lead · 14 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included