EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Monday, 24 August 2026

built 25 Aug 2026, 06:15 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

80 out / 16 in

Leads

new today

Reached

78 answered − 35 vm, 16 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

190

SMS

Follow-up

25 reached, 32 vm, 14 short, 9 missed

Lead→Booked

8.6%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Bhart Talwar

07:570:39

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Bhart Talwar

07:5810:37

incoming answered

Arunvir Singh

08:223:43

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Opeyemi Agbola

08:581:36

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Avneet Kaur

09:060:47

outgoing voicemail

Sadab Khan

09:080:47

outgoing voicemail

OLUWASEUN Adebajo

09:130:05

outgoing too short

Jaspinder Mann

09:460:06

outgoing too short

Rishikesh Bhandari

09:481:26

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Mauricio Arocha

10:010:48

outgoing voicemail

Ayush Parmar

10:030:05

outgoing too short

Iluobe odianosen precious

10:050:03

outgoing too short

jaskaran singh

10:070:05

outgoing too short

Marco M

10:134:54

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Kunal Seth

10:3218:19

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

Simon Ajie

11:170:05

outgoing too short

Simon Ajie

11:270:45

outgoing voicemail

John Augustine Matabaro Matabaro

11:301:25

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Govardhanan Jayaraman

11:330:00

outgoing no answer

Ajazas Mohiuddin MK

11:360:06

outgoing too short

Ajazas Mohiuddin MK

11:380:00

incoming no answer

Ajazas Mohiuddin MK

11:4011:17

outgoing answered

checklist23/26

Francisco Ordóñez Arregui

11:530:02

outgoing too short

PRIYASHRAVA SRIDHAR RAMESH SRIDHAR

11:550:05

outgoing too short

Kulwant Singh

11:593:18

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Tom Lawrence

12:178:07

outgoing answered

checklist23/25

Kulwant Singh

13:000:03

outgoing too short

Honey Singh

13:070:06

outgoing too short

+16478352572

13:130:05

outgoing too short

2894661244

13:260:00

incoming no answer

2894661244

13:300:00

incoming no answer

Aniket Vadsariya

13:417:06

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Aniket Vadsariya

13:480:02

outgoing too short

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

2892990235

08:440:00

incoming no answer

Opeyemi Agbola

09:111:16

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Eric Opoku Boateng

09:170:23

outgoing voicemail

2892990235

09:190:50

incoming answered

Lassana Konneh

09:212:52

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Himanshu Sharma

09:347:47

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Isabelle

09:430:47

outgoing voicemail

Ar Kr

09:440:19

outgoing voicemail

Femi Abolarin

09:440:28

outgoing voicemail

Harikrishnan

09:450:27

outgoing voicemail

Harjot Singh Juneja

09:460:01

outgoing too short

Harjot Singh Juneja

09:460:33

outgoing voicemail

Sujan Neupane

09:4711:45

outgoing answered

checklist18/26

Franklyn Stewart

10:030:30

outgoing voicemail

Amaan Vahora

10:030:24

outgoing voicemail

Ravikannan

10:040:08

outgoing too short

Amaan Vahora

10:050:00

incoming no answer

Vadym Bardukov

10:051:13

outgoing voicemail

Niraj Gurung

10:070:27

outgoing voicemail

Manthan Vaghasiya

10:080:19

outgoing no speech

Nazmul Hassan

10:081:08

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

2892990235

10:100:00

incoming no answer

Neville More

10:116:22

outgoing answered

checklist16/25

Mogal Parvez

10:190:39

outgoing voicemail

Jowayne Hinds

10:591:13

outgoing voicemail

Youssef Abdou

11:020:28

outgoing voicemail

Haron Paul Reyes

11:030:30

outgoing voicemail

Nishan Gajurel

11:050:38

outgoing voicemail

Ginto Tom

11:061:08

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Meraj Mahi

11:070:36

outgoing voicemail

Vardan Kakkar

11:100:23

outgoing voicemail

Parth

11:110:24

outgoing voicemail

Dilbar Hussain

11:120:32

outgoing voicemail

Vipul Choudhary

11:130:28

outgoing voicemail

Harsh Sharma

11:140:28

outgoing voicemail

Nisarg Chauhan

11:150:31

outgoing voicemail

Rudra Thakkar

11:160:44

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

MD ARIFUL ISLAM RAFI

11:174:50

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Palwinder Joshi

11:240:33

outgoing voicemail

Vishal Dutt

11:250:40

outgoing voicemail

Harjot Ghatora

11:270:19

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Navjot Singh

11:290:24

outgoing voicemail

Roshan Sharma

11:300:22

outgoing voicemail

𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂

11:321:01

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

𝑳𝒂𝒌𝒉𝒗𝒊𝒓 J𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒂

11:334:27

outgoing answered

checklist16/26

Noah Rajeev

11:410:59

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Rahul Verma

11:430:31

outgoing voicemail

Mr Chizzy

11:441:48

outgoing answered

checklist7/24

Ishmael Afful

11:470:24

outgoing voicemail

K D Nishantha Nishan

11:470:00

outgoing no answer

Ewere Monday

11:480:00

outgoing no answer

Ernest Ovbiolokun

11:490:57

outgoing voicemail

Don

11:560:25

outgoing voicemail

+19053513998

11:570:09

outgoing too short

Neeraj

17:450:00

incoming no answer

Neeraj

17:450:00

incoming no answer

Neeraj

17:450:00

incoming no answer

Neeraj

17:450:00

incoming no answer

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 35 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Second-Job

Landing-PGWP

Reception-Calls

Speed to lead working minutes · 4 of 35 leads called

Fastest

0 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

called outside shift · 356 min on the clock

Slowest

105 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

575 min on the clock

median 103 min · 31 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	0	34	12	35.3%	0	2	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	5	1	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	5	61	15	24.6%	3	0	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0.0%	0	1	0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads

Contacted

Qualified

Consultations

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

12:00–14:00 best connect

50/131

38.2%

16:00–18:00

5/15

33.3%

10:00–12:00

108/355

30.4%

08:00–10:00 worst

54/181

29.8%

average 31.8% over 688 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	34	1:12:27	11:19:02	02:29	13:48	76
Anshuman Mishra	1	0:00	—	02:30	02:30	8
Reine Francis	61	47:16	15:16:23	02:29	17:45	165
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 31 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Devarsh Patel	00:03	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Matin Nasirli	00:22	—	Constantine	no call	—
Marlon Lopez	06:40	—	—	no call	—
Qiyuan Cong	08:10	—	Constantine	no call	—
Tunde ibraheem	09:39	—	—	no call	—
ABITH BIJU JOSEPH	09:52	—	—	no call	—
Camillus Mbachu	10:30	—	Constantine	no call	—
Ujjawal Dhall	11:25	—	Constantine	no call	—
Brij Trivedi	11:39	—	—	no call	—
Pawanjot Singh	12:08	—	—	no call	—
Avneet Kaur	12:18	—	—	no call	—
Artur	12:34	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Samuel Mena	13:11	—	Constantine	no call	—
Henry Asmah	13:42	—	—	no call	—
Hrabovskyi Oleksandr	15:31	—	—	no call	—
Vanshit Arora	15:31	—	—	no call	—
Joshua Bolt	15:38	—	—	no call	—
Got it. It.	15:39	—	—	no call	—
Suzanne	15:40	—	—	no call	—
Hamish Arora	15:40	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Sausage shake	15:40	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Ram	15:40	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Muskan Khatri	15:55	—	Constantine	no call	—
Tristan Brown	16:07	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Lehi Lagunes	18:11	—	—	no call	—
Mohammed Rida Er rabi	21:08	—	Constantine	no call	—
Opeyemi Agbola	21:14	—	—	no call	—
Ram B K	21:20	—	—	no call	—
Diego Dos Reis Trindade	21:47	—	—	no call	—
Subin Jang	22:05	—	—	no call	—
Younus	22:18	—	—	no call	—
Femi Abolarin	00:10	09:44 (0:28)	Reine Francis	105 min	voicemail
Isabelle	01:13	09:43 (0:47)	Reine Francis	103 min	voicemail
Himanshu Sharma	03:44	09:34 (7:47)	Reine Francis	94 min	13/26
Ar Kr	00:53	06:50 (0:00)	Reine Francis	off-shift	—

Booked consultations 3 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Okoro Emmanuel	Web-Organic	Sara Habchi	12 Aug 17:13	09:42
Krunalkumar Rajendrakumar Dabhi	Client-Referall	Sara Habchi	19 Aug 20:00	10:50
Youssef Abdou	Landing-PGWP	Jonathan Gutman	20 Jul 14:22	12:00

SMS 182 sent · 8 received · 74 contacts

Reply rate

9.5%

7 of 74 conversations

Median reply

15 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	40	5	19	19	4	21.1%
Anshuman Mishra	0	1	1	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	142	2	57	55	3	5.5%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 6 conversations where the client wrote last

Arunvir Singh 07:33 · Sara Habchi 986 min

you can call me anytime

Bhart Talwar 07:49 · Sara Habchi 971 min

Hi can u please give me a call back . I am at available right now

Hamza Sarsar 08:52 · Sara Habchi 907 min

‪+90 505 576 38 81‬

Brij Trivedi 11:40 · Reine Francis 739 min

6AM - 2PM

Pawanjot Singh 12:15 · Anshuman Mishra 705 min

Hi got your number to talk about immigration help. What time you available?

Vardan Kakkar 14:46 · Reine Francis 553 min

I just wanna know how much you guys will charge to help me in getting a job which helps me in my PR

Call reviews 60 of 27 live conversations

Sara Habchi Bharat 07:57 · 0:39 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a polite and professional tone with 'my name is Sarah, I'm a case manager with EverNorth' and addressing the lead by name.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not progress beyond introductions and confirming the lead's identity. No key qualifying questions or information gathering occurred, and no next steps or offers were made. The opportunity to engage the lead further was missed.

Sara Habchi Aranvir 08:22 · 3:43 13/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, status, and eligibility thoroughly. She provided a detailed explanation about the francophone mobility program and why they could not assist at this time, showing transparency and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's citizenship, age, education, or work experience, missing opportunities to gather more information. No next steps or paid consultation were offered, and contact details were not confirmed, which could have helped maintain engagement despite the negative outcome.

Sara Habchi Opeyemi 08:58 · 1:36 7/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by using their name and acknowledged previous contact, showing continuity. They offered a clear next step by promising to have a colleague follow up and confirmed contact details for sending the office address.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any key information such as immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to assess the lead's needs. There was no summary of agreements or locking in a specific appointment time, which could reduce conversion chances.

Sara Habchi Avneet 09:06 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, stating, "this is Sarah from Evernorth." They mentioned the lead's name, Avneet, and referenced the submitted form, which is good for personalization.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation. The caller did not leave a message beyond the initial greeting and company introduction, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or offer a next step.

Sara Habchi — 09:08 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, stating, "this is Sarah from Evernorth." The message was polite and concise, mentioning the lead's interest in PR services.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. No message was left beyond the initial introduction, missing a chance to encourage a callback or provide next steps.

Reine Francis — 09:11 · 1:16 4/26

What was good

The caller was clear about the payment process and consultation booking, stating "I need to receive today the payment and the meeting today." This clarity helps set expectations for the lead.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information. There was no attempt to lock a specific date and time despite discussing payment and booking, which weakens the booking commitment.

Reine Francis — 09:17 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller reached a voicemail service promptly and did not waste time trying to engage.

What went wrong

No message was left, so there was no attempt to provide information or encourage a callback.

Reine Francis — 09:21 · 2:52 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and gathered important information about the lead's current immigration status, confirming details about the study permit and PGWP. They also offered a clear next step by promising to send an email questionnaire and confirmed contact details.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. They did not explain the process or timelines in detail, nor did they mention the RCIC licence or handle common objections. Additionally, no specific appointment was scheduled and the call ended without summarizing agreements.

Reine Francis — 09:34 · 7:47 13/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and thoroughly explained the consultation process and program options, including mentioning the RCIC license. They effectively handled the 'I'll think about it' objection by arranging a follow-up and sending documents for review.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking the lead's name and did not confirm citizenship or country of residence. They also did not gather key client details like age, education, language proficiency, or work experience, nor did they lock a specific appointment time or confirm contact details. The call ended without summarizing agreements clearly.

Reine Francis Isabel 09:43 · 0:47 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressed to Isabel, mentioning the company and reason for the call.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 09:44 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human interaction. The system message was clear about the voicemail status.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.

Reine Francis Samai 09:44 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and mentioning the application on the official website. The message invites the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were possible. The message could have included a callback number for easier response, but overall it was adequate.

Reine Francis — 09:45 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, referencing the lead's website application, and inviting a callback with a preferred time.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a phone number or email contact in the message, which could make it harder for the lead to respond promptly.

Reine Francis Harshad 09:46 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to call back to schedule a call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief and did not provide much detail about next steps or benefits.

Reine Francis Suzanne 09:47 · 11:45 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and available immigration options, mentioning the RCIC license and locking a specific appointment time. They handled the lead's questions well and confirmed next steps including document submission and payment requirements.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or key personal details like age, education, or language proficiency, missing an opportunity to better assess eligibility. The payment policy was rigidly enforced without flexibility, which might discourage some leads.

Sara Habchi Rishikesh 09:48 · 1:26 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, "I'm Sarah and I am a case manager with Evernorth." She confirmed the lead's name and obtained the correct email address for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any detailed information about the lead's situation or goals beyond mentioning PR interest. No program was presented, no next steps or paid consultation were offered, and no appointment was scheduled. The call ended quickly due to the lead being busy, resulting in a missed opportunity to engage further.

Sara Habchi — 10:01 · 0:48 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail identifying themselves and referencing a prior arrangement, which is professional and helpful for the lead.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or advance the sales process. The caller could consider leaving a more detailed message to encourage a callback.

Reine Francis Franklin 10:03 · 0:30 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, asking the lead to get back with their availability for further discussion.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were possible. The message could have been improved by briefly mentioning the next steps or benefits to encourage a callback.

Reine Francis — 10:03 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call was handled professionally by promptly reaching voicemail without unnecessary delay.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Pepin 10:05 · 1:13 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, and referenced the lead's submission on the official website. The message was polite and invited the lead to return the call to schedule a discussion.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification could take place. Leaving a clear callback request was good, but no further engagement was possible without a live conversation.

Reine Francis — 10:07 · 0:27 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 call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or address their needs directly. The message could have included a callback number for easier response.

Reine Francis — 10:08 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not develop into a conversation, so no positive sales actions could be observed.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage or introduce themselves, resulting in no meaningful interaction during the 19-second call.

Reine Francis — 10:08 · 1:08 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly as Ren from Evernorth and confirmed the client's current immigration status by asking about the post-graduate work permit. They also handled the scheduling issue professionally by arranging for a colleague to call back at a more convenient time.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key opportunities to engage the lead, such as asking for the client's name, immigration goals, and other eligibility details. No next steps were locked in, no consultation was offered, and contact details were not confirmed, resulting in a very brief and incomplete call.

Reine Francis Celeste 10:11 · 6:22 16/25

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and confirmed the lead's name, showing good rapport by saying goodbye with the lead's name. They explained the next steps and consultation process well, including fees and timelines, and handled the lead's hesitation professionally by arranging a callback time. The mention of the RCIC license and CEO involvement added credibility.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important information such as the lead's age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are crucial for assessing eligibility. They also did not confirm contact details, which is important for follow-up. No specific immigration program was presented or eligibility assessed during the call, which could have strengthened the lead's interest.

Sara Habchi Marco 10:13 · 4:54 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on. She correctly identified the lead's interest in the OINP employer stream and discussed relevant details about the employer's role and application status. The caller also confirmed WhatsApp as a contact method to assist with language barriers.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's citizenship, immigration status, age, education, or language proficiency beyond spoken language. There was no assessment of eligibility or explanation of next steps and timelines. No offer for a paid consultation or appointment was made, and the call ended abruptly due to language difficulties without summarizing or securing next steps.

Reine Francis — 10:19 · 0:39 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback with a preferred time. This is a professional approach to initiating contact.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live interaction, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. No additional information was provided to encourage immediate action.

Sara Habchi Kunal 10:32 · 18:19 17/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation with Kunal, confirming his status, education, work experience, and goals. They clearly explained the eligibility criteria and available immigration pathways, including trades and francophone programs, providing realistic expectations without making illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not mention their RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could build trust. They also missed opportunities to handle common objections and did not offer or lock in a paid consultation or confirm contact details. The call ended without summarizing agreements or next steps, which weakens closure and commitment.

Reine Francis — 10:59 · 1:13 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the purpose of the call and prompting the lead to respond.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Pierre 11:02 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Pierre, reminding him about the consultation booking. The message was concise and encouraged a response.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information, so no selling actions were performed.

Reine Francis Haren 11:03 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and providing a callback number. The message invited the lead to review information and respond with any questions or interest in proceeding, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No issues since this was a voicemail. The message was concise and professional, so nothing went wrong here.

Reine Francis Vaishan 11:05 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or address any objections. No further action was possible during this call.

Reine Francis Zenta 11:06 · 1:08 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing rapport with "Hi, Zenta." They successfully secured agreement to a specific follow-up date, saying "I will follow up again on Wednesday," which helps maintain engagement.

What went wrong

The call lacked any discussion of the lead's immigration details such as status, goals, or eligibility, missing a key opportunity to qualify the lead. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of next steps, which could lead to confusion. The conversation was very brief and did not advance the sales process beyond scheduling a follow-up.

Reine Francis Nadar 11:07 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Nadar, reminding him about booking the consultation and requesting a callback.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The caller should try to reach the lead again or follow up by other means.

Reine Francis Rosan 11:10 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and their role.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in conversation or gather information, so no selling or qualification occurred.

Reine Francis — 11:11 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call was connected to a voicemail service, so no conversation took place. No message was left, so no opportunity to engage the lead was missed.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a message on the voicemail, missing a chance to introduce the company or invite a callback.

Reine Francis — 11:12 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message reminding the lead about the consultation and the need to respond.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 11:13 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message was brief but did not include a direct call to action beyond asking to confirm interest.

Reine Francis — 11:14 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and requesting a response if the lead is no longer interested.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with the lead or gather information since the call went to voicemail, so no selling or qualification could be done.

Reine Francis Maxine 11:15 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Maxine, mentioning the previous discussion and offering to find a consultation spot tomorrow. This keeps the lead warm and shows attentiveness.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or cover any checklist items. The message was brief but sufficient; no issues noted.

Reine Francis Rudra 11:16 · 0:44 5/26

What was good

The caller was polite and acknowledged the lead's decision, saying "Good luck." They handled the objections professionally without pressure.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing a key opportunity to establish credibility. No information was gathered or shared, and no next steps or consultation were offered, resulting in a very brief and unproductive call.

Reine Francis Hammad 11:17 · 4:50 10/26

What was good

The caller addressed the lead by name and clearly offered a paid consultation, attempting to lock a date. They also handled objections about payment and trust professionally, mentioning the RCIC number and CEO email to build credibility.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company clearly, nor did they gather any personal or immigration details from the lead. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or next steps beyond booking the consultation. Contact details were not confirmed and no summary was given at the end.

Reine Francis — 11:24 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message indicating readiness to book a consultation, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Vishal 11:25 · 0:40 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and referencing a previous discussion about booking a consultation.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 11:27 · 0:19 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, stating 'This is Ren, team leader at Evernorth.' They also avoided making any illegal promises during the brief call.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or any qualifying information such as immigration status or goals. No next steps or consultation booking were offered or confirmed, and the call ended abruptly after the lead declined.

Sara Habchi — 11:27 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, stating, "this is Sarah from Evernorth."

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. No message was left for the lead to respond to.

Reine Francis — 11:29 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call reached a voicemail that was not initialized, so no conversation was possible. The caller did not leave a message, which is appropriate given the situation.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, which could have been an opportunity to briefly introduce the company and invite a callback.

Sara Habchi John 11:30 · 1:25 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and confirmed the lead's name. She successfully scheduled a specific callback date and time, locking in a next step with the lead.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any qualifying information such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR. No program was presented, no eligibility was assessed, and no consultation was offered. The call ended quickly without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements.

Reine Francis Roshan 11:30 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

A voicemail message was left for Roshan, politely checking on their interest in booking a consultation.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or assess the lead's needs.

Reine Francis Alexei 11:32 · 1:01 6/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by confirming their name and referencing previous contact, showing continuity. They also mentioned the consultation details sent by email, which is a good step towards closing.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any new information about the lead's situation or goals, missing many key qualification questions. There was no attempt to lock a consultation date or confirm contact details, and the call ended abruptly without summarizing or advancing the sale.

Reine Francis Jawdana Lakhvir 11:33 · 4:27 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and options available, saying "we would have to start first with the consultation to evaluate your options." They handled the lead's hesitation well by agreeing to send the invoice and agreement and confirming the email carefully. The caller also avoided any illegal promises, maintaining compliance.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important information such as the lead's citizenship, current immigration status, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience. There was no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could have strengthened trust. Also, no specific date or time was locked for the consultation, which could reduce conversion chances.

Sara Habchi Sarah 11:40 · 11:17 23/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and explained the services thoroughly, including eligibility assessment and program options. She handled objections well and offered a paid consultation, confirming contact details and office location.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation nor summarize the agreements at the end, missing an opportunity to secure the next step firmly.

Reine Francis Noel 11:41 · 0:59 6/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by name and confirmed a preferred communication method, saying "I'll call you in WhatsApp or I'll drop you a text in WhatsApp." They also offered a clear next step by discussing booking a consultation.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any immigration-related information such as goals, status, or eligibility. No specific appointment was locked, and no summary of agreements was provided, which missed opportunities to advance the sale effectively.

Reine Francis — 11:43 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, saying "This is Ren, team leader at Evernorth." The message was polite and encouraged the lead to respond, which is appropriate for a follow-up voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live interaction, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message could have been more specific about the next steps or how to contact, but overall it was acceptable for a brief voicemail.

Reine Francis — 11:44 · 1:48 7/24

What was good

The caller successfully secured a consultation appointment and confirmed the necessary documents and payment, locking in a specific date and time. They also confirmed the preferred contact method via WhatsApp, which helps ensure smooth communication going forward.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification steps such as asking for the client's name, immigration status, goals, and other eligibility factors. There was no introduction or explanation of the company, and no summary of agreements at the end, which could leave the client unclear about next steps.

Reine Francis — 11:47 · 0:24 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 — 11:49 · 0:57 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly and left a clear instruction to leave a message.

What went wrong

No message was left after the voicemail greeting, so no opportunity to engage the lead was utilized.

Reine Francis — 11:56 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation. The message was clear that the customer's voicemail is not initialized.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or leave contact details was taken.

Sara Habchi Kewant 11:59 · 3:18 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a polite and professional tone. She also successfully scheduled a specific callback time, locking in 'around 1 p.m.' for follow-up, which shows good call control and respect for the lead's availability.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather key information such as age, education, language skills, and detailed work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. There was no discussion of programs, steps, or timelines, nor was a paid consultation offered or contact details confirmed. The call ended abruptly without summarizing agreements or next steps, leaving the lead without a clear understanding of what to expect next.

Sara Habchi Tom Lawrence 12:17 · 8:07 23/25

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming all relevant client details and clearly explaining the eligibility and next steps. The caller handled objections well and offered a paid consultation, providing clear information about payment and scheduling options.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure the booking during the call.

Sara Habchi Aniket 13:41 · 7:06 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed information such as Aniket's immigration status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the eligibility criteria and available programs, and offered a next step with a paid consultation, demonstrating good knowledge and engagement.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' and 'I'll do it myself.' They also did not lock in a specific appointment date or confirm contact details, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end, which would have strengthened the call closure.

data check · 11 calls not matched to a lead · 18 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included