EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Wednesday, 26 August 2026

built 27 Aug 2026, 09:44 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

60 out / 18 in

Leads

new today

Reached

56 answered − 25 vm, 9 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

151

SMS

Follow-up

17 reached, 20 vm, 6 short, 21 missed

Lead→Booked

6.5%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Anmolpreet Singh

07:1711:11

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Marina Ragheb

10:234:02

outgoing answered

checklist12/26

Marina Ragheb

10:280:17

outgoing no speech

Marina Ragheb

10:280:16

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Marina Ragheb

10:300:00

outgoing no answer

Younus

10:381:30

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Fabregas Youchen

10:420:03

outgoing too short

Akbar

10:440:06

outgoing too short

John

10:470:00

outgoing no answer

Sai Manoj

10:480:00

outgoing no answer

Anurag Pathania

10:503:04

outgoing answered

checklist12/24

Parmod

10:593:45

outgoing answered

checklist13/26

Mr Sam

11:320:48

outgoing voicemail

Arun Chidambaram

11:340:55

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Arun Chidambaram

11:3610:30

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

+16478352572

12:490:07

outgoing too short

Samanda Mau

12:511:04

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Rajveer Singh

12:550:09

outgoing too short

Honey Singh

12:590:06

outgoing too short

Rajveer Singh

13:050:00

incoming no answer

Samantha

13:071:16

outgoing answered

checklist4/8

Priyanka

13:110:35

outgoing voicemail

+14375576994

13:150:03

outgoing too short

2894661244

13:161:16

incoming answered

+12898855492

13:180:03

outgoing too short

Shrijan Thapa

13:220:44

outgoing voicemail

Mr Sam

13:310:00

incoming no answer

Tim Chin

17:260:00

incoming no answer

Tim Chin

17:260:00

incoming no answer

Tim Chin

17:260:00

incoming no answer

Tim Chin

17:270:00

incoming no answer

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

Jowayne Hinds

10:031:20

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Rahul Verma

10:050:32

outgoing voicemail

Harsh Sharma

10:080:05

outgoing too short

Opeyemi Agbola

10:100:46

outgoing answered

checklist5/26

Suzanne

10:161:06

outgoing voicemail

Nisarg Chauhan

10:180:30

outgoing voicemail

Devarsh Patel

10:200:29

outgoing voicemail

Segun Saka-Aiyedun

10:241:21

outgoing answered

checklist6/24

Brij Trivedi

10:3911:02

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

Priviledge Gutss

10:540:42

outgoing voicemail

Temitope Sulaimon

10:552:34

outgoing answered

checklist10/24

Midhundas Kp

10:581:15

outgoing voicemail

Dmitriy

10:590:30

outgoing voicemail

Saul Portillo

11:000:33

outgoing voicemail

Smith Sumant

11:010:27

outgoing voicemail

Nikhil Sihag

11:020:31

outgoing voicemail

Oluwa Toni

11:032:23

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Nikhil Sihag

11:080:00

incoming no answer

Ryan Veloso

11:090:00

outgoing no answer

Ryan Veloso

11:090:00

outgoing no answer

Allan Londres

11:110:32

outgoing voicemail

Sriram K Utukuri

11:121:10

outgoing voicemail

Joshua Daniel

11:131:13

outgoing voicemail

Smith Sumant

11:140:00

incoming no answer

Vishal S. Navale

11:150:45

outgoing voicemail

Lokesh Mehta

11:450:00

outgoing no answer

Lokesh Mehta

11:459:26

incoming answered

PATIENCE ANWURI

11:580:54

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Tosha

12:511:25

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Sukhwinder Singh Deol

12:540:34

outgoing voicemail

Shiron Salim

12:580:19

outgoing voicemail

Solomon Koomson

13:003:51

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

+12498855550

13:050:13

outgoing voicemail

Neeraj

13:070:07

outgoing too short

Andrew Valenzuela

13:080:26

outgoing voicemail

Ernest Ovbiolokun

13:110:52

outgoing voicemail

Ewere Monday

13:120:00

outgoing no answer

Ishmael Afful

13:130:24

outgoing voicemail

Mr Chizzy

13:160:29

outgoing voicemail

Ishmael Afful

13:181:10

incoming answered

Sukhwinder Singh Deol

14:470:00

incoming no answer

Sukhwinder Singh Deol

14:470:00

incoming no answer

Sukhwinder Singh Deol

14:480:00

incoming no answer

+79787251302

17:060:19

outgoing · WhatsApp answered

Aizaz Mansuri

17:130:00

incoming no answer

Aizaz Mansuri

17:130:00

incoming no answer

Aizaz Mansuri

17:130:00

incoming no answer

Aizaz Mansuri

17:130:00

incoming no answer

+79787251302

17:210:38

outgoing · WhatsApp answered

+79787251302

17:231:06

incoming · WhatsApp answered

+79787251302

17:240:13

outgoing · WhatsApp answered

+79787251302

17:250:10

outgoing · WhatsApp answered

+79787251302

17:250:00

outgoing · WhatsApp no answer

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 46 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Second-Job

Landing-PGWP

Web-Organic

SMM-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 3 of 46 leads called

Fastest

11 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

Slowest

195 min

Reine Francis 08:00–14:00

380 min on the clock

median 193 min · 43 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	11	31	11	35.5%	1	3	27.3%
Anshuman Mishra	4	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	5	47	11	23.4%	0	0	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	4	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

41/120

34.2%

08:00–10:00

44/131

33.6%

10:00–12:00 worst

101/324

31.2%

average 32.5% over 576 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	31	38:49	10:09:40	07:17	17:27	114
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	5
Reine Francis	47	36:12	7:10:30	10:03	17:13	104
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 43 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Udaiveer Dhaliwal	00:30	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Aruna Abdullateef	01:27	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Nishtha Rathod	01:30	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Richard Mendez	03:08	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Naoufel Chafik	03:57	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Mellouki Toufik	04:02	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Aminata Wane	04:05	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Rabab Jawad	04:05	—	—	no call	—
Jake Grim	04:06	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
MOSTAFA ELMNAOUI	04:06	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Bouchra Djaghboub	04:07	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Hafsa Hammaoui	04:08	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Amine ANID	04:08	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
GUY BERTRAND TCHABEUWOU	04:09	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
eitel Tetsop	04:10	—	—	no call	—
IBRAHIM DOGRUER	06:39	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Ilyess Hassani	07:20	—	Jonathan Gutman	no call	—
Marouane El Bouji	07:27	—	Jonathan Gutman	no call	—
ANIL DANTANI	07:35	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Anthony Rowe	09:41	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Keron Rowe	09:49	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Smit Ahir	10:39	—	—	no call	—
Deepak Kumar	10:57	—	—	no call	—
Robert Mark Arnob D' Costa	10:58	—	—	no call	—
LAMA	11:09	—	—	no call	—
Saroj Saroj	11:33	—	Jonathan Gutman	no call	—
Hodophile	12:27	—	—	no call	—
Komalpreet Kaur	12:44	—	—	no call	—
Navdeep Sher Gill	12:44	—	—	no call	—
Mit Parmar	12:46	—	—	no call	—
Calib saturnin	13:33	—	—	no call	—
Alejandro Hernandez	14:19	—	—	no call	—
diego	14:39	—	—	no call	—
MOHAMMAD AYANKHAN PATHAN	14:54	—	Jonathan Gutman	no call	—
Ahanaf Ahmed Khan	15:25	—	Constantine	no call	—
Bharmjeet Singh	16:04	—	—	no call	—
Amrit Chalise	16:31	—	—	no call	—
Manik Samra1	19:02	—	—	no call	—
Andrew Charls	20:15	—	—	no call	—
Abhishek Upadhyay	20:31	—	—	no call	—
Trần Thanh Hữu Hồ	22:16	—	—	no call	—
Johnmhark Ballesteros	23:10	—	—	no call	—
Leonid Senal	23:35	—	—	no call	—
Vishal S. Navale	04:54	11:15 (0:45)	Reine Francis	195 min	voicemail
Joshua Daniel	01:44	11:13 (1:13)	Reine Francis	193 min	voicemail
Marina Ragheb	10:12	10:23 (4:02)	Sara Habchi	11 min	12/26

Booked consultations 3 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Inderpal Sandhu	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	17 Aug 20:03	11:12
Mohamad Hammoud	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	14 Aug 00:20	12:33
Kevon Senior	Web-Organic	Sara Habchi	29 Jul 20:30	21:08

SMS 136 sent · 15 received · 67 contacts

Reply rate

10.9%

7 of 64 conversations

Median reply

1 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	39	9	19	16	3	18.8%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	97	6	50	48	4	8.3%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 7 conversations where the client wrote last

Brij Trivedi 07:49 · Reine Francis 970 min

Yes you can give me a call right now

ABHIJITH 10:36 · Reine Francis 804 min

Hey

Shiron Salim 12:58 · Reine Francis 661 min

Can I call you later?

Neville More 13:27 · Reine Francis 632 min

Thanks a lot for your support

Ginto Tom 14:44 · Reine Francis 555 min

Hi Reine, Thank you for following up. I appreciate your time andassistance, but I’m not interested in proceeding with th

Amrit Chalise 16:32 · Sara Habchi 447 min

Hello

Tim Chin 17:27 · Sara Habchi 392 min

If you have time, please call me back

WhatsApp calls 6 calls · 5 out / 1 in · 2:26 talk

4 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Sara, Anshuman, Jonathan are missing from this report

Caller	Calls	Out	In	Reached	Talk	Matched
Sara Habchi	0	0	0	0	0:00	0/0
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0:00	0/0
Reine Francis	6	5	1	5	2:26	0/5
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0:00	0/0

5 conversations not matched to a lead — the contact is saved in the phone book, so WhatsApp shows a name instead of a number

WhatsApp call reviews 5 of 5 conversations

Reine Francis +79787251302 17:06 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

There was no actual conversation on this call, so no selling activity took place.

What went wrong

The call lasted only 19 seconds with no speech or interaction, indicating a missed opportunity to engage the lead.

Reine Francis +79787251302 17:21 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The call was clearly identified as a test call with no real conversation, so no scoring was needed.

What went wrong

There was no actual conversation or engagement with a lead; the call consisted solely of repeated test phrases and numbers, providing no opportunity to assess or progress a client inquiry.

Reine Francis +79787251302 17:23 · 1:06 0/0

What was good

The call contained no intelligible speech or interaction to evaluate.

What went wrong

The call was too short and contained no meaningful conversation or information to assess performance.

Reine Francis +79787251302 17:24 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not contain any speech or interaction.

What went wrong

The call lasted only 13 seconds with no meaningful conversation or engagement; no attempt to introduce or gather information was made.

Reine Francis +79787251302 17:25 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call was too short to evaluate any sales activity or compliance. No interaction occurred.

What went wrong

No opportunity to engage or gather information due to the extremely brief call duration.

Agents recording software on callers' machines

Caller	Last seen	Status
Reine Francis	17:25 (978 min ago)	offline
Sara Habchi	—	offline
Anshuman Mishra	—	offline
Jonathan Gutman	—	offline

Call reviews 44 of 22 live conversations

Sara Habchi Anmolpreet 07:17 · 11:11 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming key details such as immigration status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the PR pathways, steps, and pricing, and introduced the RCIC licensed consultant involvement, providing a clear next step with the paid consultation offer.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking the lead's age and did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific consultation date and time. Also, no objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were addressed, which could have been opportunities to reassure the lead and advance the sale.

Reine Francis Tuane 10:03 · 1:20 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's interest, successfully locking in a specific date for the consultation by saying, 'make sure to get back to me before Monday to book for Monday.' The offer of the next step was clear and actionable.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important client information such as citizenship, immigration status, and goals, which are essential for tailoring the service. There was no confirmation of contact details or a summary of the agreements at the end, which could lead to confusion or missed appointments.

Reine Francis — 10:05 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, saying "This is Ren, team leader at EverNorth." They also reminded the lead about the previous discussion regarding booking a consultation, which is a good follow-up approach.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or address any objections. No message was left beyond the brief reminder, so it might not be compelling enough to prompt a callback.

Reine Francis — 10:10 · 0:46 5/26

What was good

The caller was polite and responsive, confirming the preferred contact method clearly: "You can copy me by WhatsApp." They also offered a clear next step by agreeing to send the needed information for the consultation.

What went wrong

The caller missed the opportunity to introduce themselves and the company, and did not gather any client details or discuss the client's goals or status. There was no attempt to explain the process or handle objections, which are important for moving the lead forward.

Reine Francis — 10:16 · 1:06 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message reminding Suzanne about booking a consultation, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 10:18 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message reminding the lead about the missed consultation and asking for confirmation of interest.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Victoria 10:20 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressed to Victoria, referencing a prior WhatsApp conversation and inviting her to book a consultation.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in conversation or gather information. The caller did not introduce the company explicitly in the message, which could improve clarity for the lead.

Sara Habchi Marina 10:23 · 4:02 12/26

What was good

The caller established rapport well by greeting Marina warmly and confirming her background details, such as education and work experience. The conversation showed good listening and clarification, for example confirming Marina's IELTS and French proficiency.

What went wrong

The caller did not progress to presenting a program, assessing eligibility, or offering next steps like a consultation. There was no handling of objections or confirmation of contact details, which are important to move the sale forward. The call ended without summarizing or locking any agreements.

Reine Francis — 10:24 · 1:21 6/24

What was good

The caller was polite and confirmed the client's current immigration status accurately. They also secured agreement to send details via WhatsApp, which is a good next step.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the client's name or immigration goals. The call was very brief and missed many key qualification and presentation steps, such as explaining programs or timelines, and no appointment was scheduled.

Sara Habchi — 10:28 · 0:17 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead by calling and trying to establish connection.

What went wrong

The call was too short and contained no meaningful conversation or engagement with the lead. No introduction or information gathering occurred, so no progress was made.

Sara Habchi Marina 10:28 · 0:16 3/26

What was good

The caller quickly tried to confirm the lead's identity by asking, "Marina, is this Marina?" This shows an attempt to engage the lead promptly.

What went wrong

The call was extremely short and lacked any introduction or company identification. No information was gathered or shared, and no next steps were offered. The caller missed the opportunity to build rapport or advance the conversation beyond confirming the lead's name.

Sara Habchi — 10:38 · 1:30 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, saying, 'My name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She successfully locked a specific date and time for a follow-up call and confirmed the lead's phone number, ensuring the next step was set up.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or timelines, and no summary of the call's agreements. This call was mostly about scheduling a follow-up rather than advancing the sales process.

Reine Francis Francis 10:39 · 11:02 21/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name and immigration status early on. They thoroughly explained the consultation process, eligibility assessment, and potential immigration pathways, demonstrating knowledge and professionalism. The caller also confirmed contact details and summarized next steps effectively, maintaining a helpful and patient tone throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's education, which is important for eligibility assessment. They also did not lock in a specific consultation date and time, only offering options without securing a commitment. Additionally, common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not addressed explicitly during the call.

Sara Habchi Anurag 10:50 · 3:04 12/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on. She assessed the lead's current status and eligibility carefully, explaining why the company could not assist at this time and suggesting future options.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about citizenship, age, or education, missing some key qualification questions. She also did not offer a paid consultation or lock in a next step, nor confirm contact details or summarize the call, which are important for progressing the lead.

Reine Francis — 10:54 · 0:42 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and requesting a callback to discuss next steps.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or gather information from the lead. The message could have included a more specific call to action or a callback window to improve response chances.

Reine Francis — 10:55 · 2:34 10/24

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly and assessed the lead's current immigration status well, identifying the best program option for them. They also offered a clear next step by suggesting a consultation to explore eligibility.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as the lead's name, citizenship, goals, age, education, language skills, and work experience. They did not confirm contact details or lock in a follow-up appointment, nor did they summarize the call's agreements, which could reduce lead engagement.

Reine Francis — 10:58 · 1:15 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the reason for the call, inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have been more concise and included a callback number for easier response.

Sara Habchi Parmod 10:59 · 3:45 13/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, confirming the lead's name and current immigration status. She assessed eligibility carefully and explained the relevant program and timelines clearly, avoiding any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, age, education, and work experience. She also did not offer a paid consultation or confirm contact details, nor did she summarize the call's agreements. These missed opportunities could reduce conversion chances.

Reine Francis Dimitri 10:59 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call. The message was concise and professional.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were completed. The caller did not leave detailed information about next steps or consultation offers, which could improve callback rates.

Reine Francis — 11:00 · 0:33 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail as indicated by the greeting message. No live conversation took place, so no selling was attempted.

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis Smith 11:01 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback at the lead's convenience.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief and did not mention next steps or consultation offers.

Reine Francis — 11:02 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and requested a callback to discuss next steps.

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 specific call-back time offer.

Reine Francis — 11:03 · 2:23 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly at the start, establishing context. They confirmed the lead's current immigration status and offered to send information by email, showing responsiveness to the lead's preference. The caller also proposed a next step by suggesting another call to discuss further, keeping the engagement open.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as the lead's name, goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. They did not present any program options, explain steps or timelines, or confirm contact details, which weakens the sales process. Additionally, no specific date or time was locked for the follow-up call, reducing the chance of commitment.

Reine Francis Adam 11:11 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. The caller did not leave detailed information about next steps or consultation offers, which could have added value to the message.

Reine Francis — 11:12 · 1:10 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's website application. This provides a good prompt for the lead to return the call.

What went wrong

No message was left beyond the initial voicemail greeting and a brief note. The caller could have left a more detailed message to encourage a callback, such as mentioning next steps or offering a consultation.

Reine Francis — 11:13 · 1:13 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail identifying themselves and the company, and invited the lead to respond with a preferred time for 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 to encourage a callback.

Reine Francis Michel Noble 11:15 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message, stating their name and company and requesting a callback with a preferred time.

What went wrong

No errors since this was a voicemail. The message was concise and professional, encouraging the lead to respond.

Sara Habchi — 11:32 · 0:48 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, saying, "this is Sarah from Evernorth." She also mentioned the reason for the call related to PR services, which is helpful for the lead to understand the purpose.

What went wrong

This call went to voicemail and no message was left beyond the initial greeting. Leaving a brief message could improve chances of a callback.

Sara Habchi Arun 11:34 · 0:55 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and named the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal approach. She also mentioned the PR application, aligning with the lead's inquiry.

What went wrong

The call was very short and cut off due to poor connection, with no further qualification or explanation of services. Important checklist items like eligibility assessment, program presentation, and next steps were not covered.

Sara Habchi Arun 11:36 · 10:30 22/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good rapport. She thoroughly gathered detailed information about Arun's status, education, work experience, and family, and clearly explained the relevant immigration programs and next steps. The call ended with a clear offer of a paid consultation and confirmation of contact details.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle any objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' which could have strengthened the engagement. Also, no specific date and time for the consultation was locked during the call, missing an opportunity to secure the next step firmly.

Reine Francis Patience 11:58 · 0:54 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and reminded the lead of prior contact, which helps maintain continuity. They also directly asked if the lead was ready to move forward with the consultation, showing focus on next steps.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not explore any client details or needs beyond confirming readiness. The caller missed opportunities to confirm contact details, lock a date, or handle objections, which would have strengthened the engagement.

Reine Francis Tosha 12:51 · 1:25 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch. They handled the lead's request to pause the process politely and clarified the fees for resuming later, which helped manage expectations.

What went wrong

The call lacked any discussion of the lead's immigration details or goals, missing opportunities to assess eligibility or present programs. No next steps or consultations were offered, and no contact details or follow-up appointments were confirmed, resulting in a very limited engagement.

Sara Habchi — 12:51 · 1:04 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and referenced the RCIC licensed consultant to build trust. She also offered a clear next step by proposing a follow-up call and confirmed contact details for WhatsApp communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals, missing an opportunity to engage more deeply. Additionally, no specific date or time was locked for the follow-up call, which could lead to delays or lost opportunities.

Reine Francis Suclender 12:54 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message addressing the lead by name and inviting them to get back with questions or to move forward. This is a polite and professional approach to following up when the lead did not answer.

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 call to action beyond asking for a callback, which limits its effectiveness.

Reine Francis Sharon 12:58 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

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

Reine Francis — 13:00 · 3:51 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and reminded the lead of prior contact, which helped establish rapport. They effectively offered a discount incentive and confirmed the next step of signing the agreement and payment. The caller also confirmed WhatsApp contact details, facilitating further communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm key client details such as immigration goals or status, missing an opportunity to deepen understanding. No program details, timelines, or RCIC credentials were discussed, which would strengthen trust and clarity. The call ended without locking a specific date or summarizing agreements, which could reduce commitment certainty.

Reine Francis — 13:05 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached a voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation.

What went wrong

No message was left, so the opportunity to engage the lead was missed.

Sara Habchi Samantha 13:07 · 1:16 4/8

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and addressed the lead by name, showing familiarity with the lead's previous consultation. The caller was polite and maintained a friendly tone throughout the brief follow-up call.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not cover any of the key qualification or sales steps beyond confirming the lead's intended start time. There was no offer of a next step or attempt to lock a specific appointment, and no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements. The opportunity to advance the sale was missed.

Reine Francis Andrew 13:08 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message invited the lead to get back with any questions and readiness to proceed, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live conversation, no selling or qualifying actions could be taken. The caller did not leave detailed information or a callback number, which might reduce the chance of a prompt response.

Reine Francis — 13:11 · 0:52 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message identifying themselves and the purpose, which is good for follow-up.

What went wrong

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

Sara Habchi Priyanka 13:11 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to assess sales skills or follow-up actions. The message was appropriate but did not secure a direct response or next step.

Reine Francis — 13:13 · 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, so no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.

Reine Francis — 13:16 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message referencing a previous conversation and the intent to book a consultation. The message was polite and concise, making it easy for the lead to understand the next step.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage live or gather information. No errors in the voicemail content itself.

Sara Habchi — 13:22 · 0:44 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly stated their name and company in the voicemail, which is professional. The message was concise and polite, asking for an update.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or engagement occurred. No message was left beyond the initial greeting and request for an update, which limits follow-up potential.

data check · 8 calls not matched to a lead · 21 leads unassigned · 57 anomalies logged · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included