EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Friday, 21 August 2026

built 22 Aug 2026, 06:11 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

57 out / 5 in

Leads

new today

Reached

55 answered − 23 vm, 12 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

107

SMS

Follow-up

17 reached, 20 vm, 9 short, 5 missed

Lead→Booked

14.3%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Ashish Johnson

09:1314:18

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Ho Yu Hoy Papas

09:291:29

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Brown Kenrick

09:390:00

outgoing no answer

Syed Nawaz

09:4015:36

outgoing answered

checklist22/25

Harmeet Singh

10:0211:32

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Shivam Jakhar

10:240:02

outgoing too short

Sagar Lama

10:250:06

outgoing too short

Sudipto Chatterjee

10:290:00

outgoing no answer

Sudipto Chatterjee

10:3110:33

incoming answered

Kunal Seth

11:000:05

outgoing too short

Abdul Qadir

11:020:05

outgoing too short

Conrado R. Valdez II

11:030:00

outgoing no answer

Lasana

11:040:04

outgoing too short

John Smithtest

11:150:04

outgoing too short

Mayank Patel

11:170:35

outgoing voicemail

Aayan Stha

12:120:04

outgoing too short

Bibek Chhetri

12:2514:48

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Anton

12:5912:17

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

Jaskaran Singh

13:1313:49

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Christian G Doekpar

13:380:03

outgoing too short

+16478352572

13:390:08

outgoing too short

Honey Singh

13:440:05

outgoing too short

+16475641595

13:480:07

outgoing too short

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

Ginto Tom

09:186:14

outgoing answered

checklist16/26

Opeyemi Agbola

09:3010:44

outgoing answered

checklist16/26

Ricardo Singh

09:434:42

outgoing answered

checklist14/26

Edward

09:490:31

outgoing voicemail

Yousuf Porosh

09:500:38

outgoing voicemail

Manokaran Thirushelvan

09:513:03

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Vardan Kakkar

10:010:19

outgoing voicemail

Meraj Mahi

10:028:25

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Navjot Singh

10:159:52

outgoing answered

checklist19/26

Edmond Sarpong

10:381:53

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Jowayne Hinds

10:401:10

outgoing voicemail

Youssef Abdou

10:420:24

outgoing voicemail

Palwinder Joshi

10:490:36

outgoing voicemail

MD ARIFUL ISLAM RAFI

10:526:56

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Vipul Choudhary

11:001:01

outgoing voicemail

Roshan Sharma

11:010:28

outgoing voicemail

2892990235

11:020:00

incoming no answer

Dilbar Hussain

11:040:24

outgoing voicemail

2892990235

11:040:00

incoming no answer

𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂

11:060:51

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Harjot Ghatora

11:070:41

outgoing voicemail

Parth

11:080:24

outgoing voicemail

Nisarg Chauhan

11:091:57

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Rahul Verma

11:150:32

outgoing voicemail

Vishal Dutt

11:170:31

outgoing voicemail

Ramanjeet Singh

11:191:20

outgoing answered

checklist2/26

Dev

11:210:36

outgoing voicemail

Harsh Sharma

11:220:38

outgoing voicemail

Mahamad Mustapha

11:230:47

outgoing voicemail

Gurpal Singh

11:240:34

outgoing voicemail

Ishmael Afful

11:250:24

outgoing voicemail

Mr Chizzy

11:260:22

outgoing voicemail

Dîpêñ Jâmkâtêl

11:270:24

outgoing voicemail

Ibrahim Dauda

11:280:06

outgoing too short

Don

11:350:20

outgoing voicemail

+19053513998

11:400:21

outgoing voicemail

Vardan Kakkar

11:518:54

outgoing answered

checklist18/26

Vipul Choudhary

14:300:00

incoming no answer

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 21 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

Second-Job

SMM-Organic

Web-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 4 of 21 leads called

Fastest

43 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

Slowest

112 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

541 min on the clock

median 97 min · 17 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	1	24	8	33.3%	0	2	200.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	5	38	12	31.6%	2	1	20.0%
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

53/134

39.6%

16:00–18:00

5/15

33.3%

10:00–12:00

108/359

30.1%

08:00–10:00 worst

53/183

29.0%

average 31.7% over 697 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	24	1:34:22	7:06:36	06:42	13:48	57
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	0
Reine Francis	38	1:04:51	5:12:01	09:18	14:30	119
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 16 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
D S Sagar Tripuramallu	01:17	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Rian Gray	03:01	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Avneet Kaur	12:49	—	—	no call	—
Sadab Khan	13:47	—	—	no call	—
OLUWASEUN Adebajo	14:38	—	—	no call	—
Jaspinder Mann	15:31	—	—	no call	—
Test Test	16:36	—	—	no call	—
Hamza Sarsar	18:57	—	—	no call	—
Arunvir Singh	19:49	—	—	no call	—
Opeyemi Agbola	20:25	—	—	no call	—
Bhart Talwar	20:50	—	—	no call	—
Rishikesh Bhandari	21:40	—	—	no call	—
Ayush Parmar	21:59	—	—	no call	—
Iluobe odianosen precious	22:59	—	—	no call	—
jaskaran singh	23:18	—	—	no call	—
Marco M	23:58	—	—	no call	—
Manokaran Thirushelvan	00:50	09:51 (3:03)	Reine Francis	112 min	11/26
Meraj Mahi	08:26	10:02 (8:25)	Reine Francis	97 min	20/26
Mayank Patel	09:54	11:17 (0:35)	Sara Habchi	83 min	voicemail
Vardan Kakkar	09:18	10:01 (0:19)	Reine Francis	43 min	voicemail
John Smithtest	11:40	11:15 (0:04)	—	inbound first	—

Booked consultations 3 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Andrew Valenzuela	Meta-Form-PGWP	Reine Francis	15 Jul 07:15	07:26
Reindolf Nkrumah	Meta-Form-PGWP	Sara Habchi	19 Aug 16:12	09:33
Thinley Chedup	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	11 Aug 13:26	14:16

SMS 94 sent · 13 received · 42 contacts

Reply rate

11.9%

5 of 42 conversations

Median reply

32 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	23	1	11	10	1	10.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	71	12	32	32	4	12.5%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 3 conversations where the client wrote last

Mahamad Mustapha 11:26 · Reine Francis 753 min

No longer interested

Vardan Kakkar 11:49 · Reine Francis 731 min

OLUWASEUN Adebajo 14:39 · Reine Francis 560 min

5PM-9PM

Call reviews 42 of 20 live conversations

Sara Habchi Johnson 09:13 · 14:18 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed information about the lead's and spouse's status, education, and work experience. Sarah clearly explained the PR pathways, eligibility, and next steps, including offering a paid consultation with the director. The call was informative and personalized, showing good knowledge and care.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' which could help move the lead closer to a decision. Also, the caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details or summarize the agreements at the end, which are important for securing commitment and clarity.

Reine Francis Gemto 09:18 · 6:14 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name and immigration status early on. They explained the next steps and available programs thoroughly, including the consultation process and fees, and offered a specific date for the next meeting while confirming contact details.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's citizenship, goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not summarize the agreements at the end or handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.'

Sara Habchi — 09:29 · 1:29 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company twice, establishing the purpose of the call. She politely asked if it was a good time to talk and offered to schedule a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. No next steps were firmly scheduled, and no consultation was offered. The call ended quickly without advancing the sales process beyond initial contact.

Reine Francis — 09:30 · 10:44 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and provided a thorough explanation of the next steps and program options, including mentioning the RCIC license. They successfully offered a paid consultation and discussed scheduling a specific date, showing good control of the call flow.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm key personal details such as age, education, or work experience, which are important for assessment. There was no summary of agreements at the end, and some objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not addressed. Overall, the call lacked some qualification questions that would help tailor the advice better.

Sara Habchi Syed 09:40 · 15:36 22/25

What was good

The caller established a thorough and professional conversation with Syed, confirming detailed personal and immigration information and clearly explaining the PR process and options. The caller also effectively handled concerns and offered a paid consultation, showing good knowledge and client engagement.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end of the call, which could have strengthened the commitment and clarity for the lead.

Reine Francis Ricardo 09:43 · 4:42 14/26

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good connection. He assessed the client's immigration status thoroughly and presented relevant program options, showing understanding of the lead's situation. The caller was careful not to make any illegal promises and maintained professionalism throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. There was no offer of a paid consultation or locking in a next step, and contact details were not confirmed. Also, the caller did not highlight the RCIC license or past successful cases, which could build trust and credibility.

Reine Francis — 09:49 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and requesting a callback to schedule a discussion. The message was concise and professional, providing the lead with clear instructions to respond when available.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The caller did not leave any specific next steps beyond asking for a callback, which limits progress until contact is made.

Reine Francis — 09:50 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly stated their name and company, and referenced the lead's website submission, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail with no message left beyond the initial greeting, so no opportunity to engage or advance the sale was taken.

Reine Francis — 09:51 · 3:03 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and assessed the lead's visa status carefully, explaining the challenges and potential solutions. They offered a next step by inviting the lead to contact them when ready and avoided making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or immigration goals, nor did they gather key information like age, education, language proficiency, or work experience. They also missed confirming contact details, locking a follow-up appointment, or summarizing the call outcomes, which would strengthen the engagement.

Reine Francis — 10:01 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not waste time trying to speak to a non-existent person. The message was clear that the customer has not initialized voicemail.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so there was no opportunity to engage or leave contact information for a callback.

Sara Habchi Harmeet 10:02 · 11:32 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Harmeet, confirming key details and clearly explaining the PR eligibility and options. They carefully presented the consultation process and pricing, including the RCIC license and collaboration with employers, which builds trust.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age and did not handle any common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Also, no specific date or time was locked for the consultation, and the call ended without a summary of agreements, which could improve clarity and commitment.

Reine Francis Niraj 10:02 · 8:25 20/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing rapport. They thoroughly explained the consultation process, eligibility, and potential immigration pathways, providing detailed information about next steps and fees. The caller also handled objections well and ensured the lead understood the process without making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age and education, which are important for eligibility assessment. They did not secure a specific appointment date or time, leaving the booking open-ended. Additionally, work experience details were not explored, which could have helped tailor the advice more precisely.

Reine Francis Natar 10:15 · 9:52 19/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's current immigration status, discussing relevant programs and next steps in detail. They handled the lead's objections well and offered a paid consultation, maintaining compliance by avoiding any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. They did not lock in a specific consultation date or summarize agreements at the end, which could improve closing effectiveness.

Reine Francis Atman 10:38 · 1:53 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and confirmed the lead's name, showing good rapport by asking how they were doing. They effectively secured a specific follow-up date, 'Only Thursday,' which helps maintain engagement and move the process forward.

What went wrong

The call lacked any discussion of the lead's immigration details such as status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to deepen the conversation. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements at the end, which are important for clarity and next steps. The caller also did not handle any objections beyond payment timing, limiting the chance to address concerns fully.

Reine Francis Solane 10:40 · 1:10 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear, polite voicemail message for Solane, reminding them about the consultation booking and inviting a response.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message was brief and did not provide additional information that might encourage a callback.

Reine Francis — 10:42 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation. 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 information.

Reine Francis Penwinder 10:49 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message confirming the need to finalize the appointment and send documents. The message was concise and professional, mentioning the previous WhatsApp conversation and next steps.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or address client questions. The caller could consider leaving a callback number to facilitate easier client response.

Reine Francis — 10:52 · 6:56 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation fee and booking process, confirming the $99 fee and required documents. They successfully locked a specific date and time for the consultation and confirmed sending the office address by email.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any personal details such as immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to assess the lead's needs. There was no summary of agreements at the end, and no mention of RCIC licence or past success cases to build trust.

Reine Francis — 11:00 · 1:01 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message prompting the lead to respond about their consultation decision. This keeps the communication open and professional.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Roshan 11:01 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and inviting a response about interest in consultation.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further on this call.

Reine Francis — 11:04 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear message referencing a previous discussion and requested confirmation for a consultation, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have included the caller's name and company for clarity.

Reine Francis — 11:06 · 0:51 3/26

What was good

The caller politely asked for the correct email address, showing an attempt to confirm contact details.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions or present any information about the services. The call ended abruptly without securing any next steps or further engagement.

Reine Francis Harsha 11:07 · 0:41 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message for Harsha, encouraging a callback regarding the consultation booking.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message was brief and did not include company introduction or other details that might improve callback rates.

Reine Francis — 11:08 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to push the call further.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 11:09 · 1:57 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully scheduled a consultation appointment and confirmed sending the questionnaire, invoice, and agreement via WhatsApp. They managed to find a suitable time despite the lead's busy schedule, showing flexibility and persistence.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or gather any immigration-related information. There was no discussion of the lead's goals, status, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to engage and qualify the lead more thoroughly.

Reine Francis Rahul 11:15 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the next steps.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further.

Reine Francis — 11:17 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message inviting Vishal to get in touch to book a consultation.

What went wrong

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

Sara Habchi Mayank 11:17 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch. They left a message explaining the purpose of the call regarding PR services, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

The call ended as a voicemail with no opportunity to engage the lead in conversation or gather information. No next steps or contact confirmations could be established due to the lead being unavailable.

Reine Francis — 11:19 · 1:20 2/26

What was good

The caller correctly followed up as promised, referencing the previous conversation and respecting the lead's decision to pause the application. The tone was polite and understanding throughout the call.

What went wrong

The caller missed the opportunity to engage the lead more deeply by not asking any qualifying questions or offering next steps such as booking a consultation. There was no introduction or attempt to confirm details, which made the call feel transactional rather than consultative.

Reine Francis — 11:21 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message reminding the lead about the consultation booking and requested a response if no longer interested. This shows good follow-up effort.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Harsh 11:22 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message referencing prior WhatsApp contact and inviting a response. The message was concise and professional, making it easy for the lead to understand the purpose and next steps.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 11:23 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail reminding the lead about the consultation booking and the need to confirm. The message was concise and professional, encouraging the lead to respond if still interested.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no direct interaction occurred and no selling actions could be performed. The caller could have left a more detailed message including the company name for clarity.

Reine Francis — 11:24 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message reminding the lead about the consultation and asking for a response. The message was concise and respectful, which is appropriate for a follow-up voicemail.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification could be done. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or more specific next steps to encourage a reply.

Reine Francis — 11:25 · 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 there was no opportunity to engage or leave contact information for a callback.

Reine Francis — 11:26 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a brief voicemail message as requested, indicating to call back when available.

What went wrong

No message content was provided beyond a callback request, so no information was gathered or offered.

Reine Francis Bertrand 11:27 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and inviting a response to stop further contact.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 11:35 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Tom, asking for a response about starting the application and payment timing.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to evaluate the sales approach or compliance. The message could have included the caller's name and company for better identification.

Reine Francis — 11:40 · 0:21 0/0

What was good

The caller left a brief voicemail message, indicating readiness to talk again.

What went wrong

The message was very short and did not provide any useful information or next steps for the lead.

Reine Francis — 11:51 · 8:54 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the immigration pathways and next steps, including the paid consultation and documentation requirements. They provided detailed information about the trade sector option and addressed the lead's questions about fees and location. The caller also secured a tentative appointment for Monday and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, nor did they ask for the lead's name. They missed asking about age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. The call ended without a clear summary of agreements, and some objections like 'I'll think about it' were not handled.

Sara Habchi Vivek 12:25 · 14:48 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Vivek, confirming detailed information and explaining multiple pathways clearly. They effectively handled objections and presented the services and next steps, including the paid consultation with the director. The caller also demonstrated knowledge of immigration programs and maintained a helpful tone throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details such as WhatsApp or email, which are important to secure the next step. Additionally, the call ended without a clear summary of agreements, missing an opportunity to reinforce the plan and commitments.

Sara Habchi Anton 12:59 · 12:17 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Anton, confirming all relevant personal and immigration details and clearly explaining the eligibility and program options. They also offered a paid consultation and shared office location and contact details, demonstrating good service and transparency.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' missing an opportunity to reassure and engage the lead further. Additionally, they did not lock in a specific consultation date and time or summarize the agreements at the end, which could reduce conversion effectiveness.

Sara Habchi Jessica 13:13 · 13:49 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough needs assessment, asking about Jessica's status, education, and work experience, and clearly explained the PR pathways and next steps. They also introduced the company and offered a paid consultation with detailed information about the process and fees.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask Jessica's age, which is important for eligibility assessment. They also did not handle any objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' nor did they lock a specific date and time for the consultation or summarize agreements at the end of the call.

data check · 5 calls not matched to a lead · 15 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included