EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Friday, 11 September 2026

built 12 Sep 2026, 06:20 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
104
89 out / 15 in
Leads
43
new today
Reached
37
89 answered − 33 vm, 19 short
Qualified
6
good status
Booked
2
moved to 1.4
Messages
182
SMS
Follow-up
63
25 reached, 20 vm, 15 short, 3 missed
Lead→Booked
4.7%
daily rate

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

070911131517192123
Sara
Abiral Pathak
07:0010:13
outgoing answered
checklist21/24
Aman srivastav
09:051:05
outgoing voicemail
Pranay Matta
09:080:30
outgoing voicemail
Sachin Paudel
09:090:16
outgoing voicemail
+14372998292
09:180:00
outgoing no answer
Deepak Sha James
09:200:09
outgoing too short
Youssef
09:220:06
outgoing too short
Mrigank Raj
09:230:29
outgoing voicemail
Didymus Ogunjobi
09:250:17
outgoing voicemail
Neel
09:280:41
outgoing voicemail
Ayoob Ayoob
09:460:04
outgoing too short
Zafar Gaybullaev
09:473:36
outgoing answered
checklist11/26
Zafar Gaybullaev
09:510:24
outgoing voicemail
Zafar Gaybullaev
09:514:52
incoming answered
Zafar Gaybullaev
09:564:17
incoming answered
Zafar Gaybullaev
10:001:25
incoming answered
Abdul Moeed Ashraf
10:160:08
outgoing too short
Mohammed Shaikh
10:360:49
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Fredy John
10:380:22
outgoing no speech
Fredy John
10:390:04
outgoing too short
Bibekananda Chanda
10:410:41
outgoing answered
checklist7/25
Manpreet Brar
10:430:28
outgoing voicemail
Kartik Kartik
10:470:04
outgoing too short
Herrschh Hershgod
10:510:10
outgoing voicemail
Gulshan Singh
10:530:05
outgoing too short
Nicolas Uribe Arias
11:020:45
outgoing answered
checklist6/12
PRIYASHRAVA SRIDHAR RAMESH SRIDHAR
11:100:03
outgoing too short
Sudipto Chatterjee
11:112:01
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Prabhjot Singh
11:160:03
outgoing too short
+14372998292
11:310:00
outgoing no answer
2894661244
11:380:00
incoming no answer
Uriel Jimenez
12:001:44
outgoing answered
checklist13/26
Prabhjot Singh
12:090:05
outgoing too short
Birat Aryal
12:130:30
outgoing voicemail
John Eklu
12:170:05
outgoing too short
Supreet Singh
12:231:35
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
2894661244
12:250:40
incoming answered
Parth Roy
12:307:15
outgoing answered
checklist22/26
John Eklu
12:390:00
incoming no answer
John Eklu
12:431:38
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
John Eklu
12:450:30
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Daniel Carlos
12:500:58
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Sudeep Thatikayala
12:530:45
outgoing voicemail
Melben Baya Teruel
12:550:03
outgoing too short
2894661244
13:100:00
incoming no answer
2894661244
13:100:00
incoming no answer
PRIYASHRAVA SRIDHAR RAMESH SRIDHAR
13:111:20
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
355389309443
13:430:00
outgoing no answer
2894661244
14:040:00
incoming no answer
Reine
Dhruv Sasani
09:250:01
outgoing too short
Ahmed Gomaa
09:260:34
outgoing voicemail
Aftab Hussain
09:270:30
outgoing voicemail
Moizuddin Ahsan Syed
09:280:28
outgoing voicemail
Kirtan Patel
09:290:39
outgoing voicemail
KHAN
09:300:31
outgoing voicemail
Ruel Bumanlag
09:318:14
outgoing answered
checklist16/24
Sarin
09:430:29
outgoing voicemail
Manavi Shetty
09:430:24
outgoing voicemail
Nelson
09:440:00
outgoing no answer
Wickrama Arachchi Appuhamilage
09:450:49
outgoing voicemail
Jai Viswanathan
10:010:05
outgoing too short
Jai Viswanathan
10:020:36
outgoing voicemail
Edmond Sarpong
10:030:49
outgoing voicemail
Naveed Md
10:070:29
outgoing voicemail
Moizuddin Ahsan Syed
10:245:34
outgoing answered
checklist15/26
+14376633562
10:350:53
outgoing voicemail
+14376633562
10:361:56
outgoing wrong number
checklist0/24
Darshan Kalpeshbhai Sompura
10:487:56
outgoing answered
checklist20/26
Rakin Farabee Kabir
11:019:25
outgoing voicemail
Zahin Zarif Khondoker
11:131:45
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Augustine Appiah Bamfo
11:220:25
outgoing voicemail
Gurpal Singh
11:240:31
outgoing voicemail
Tomás Ortega G.
11:260:34
outgoing voicemail
Samad Dere
11:270:45
outgoing voicemail
Arsalan Hafezi
11:290:28
outgoing voicemail
Amalkrishna Suresh
11:310:08
outgoing too short
Tulsi Rajbhandari
11:329:28
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
2892990235
14:040:00
incoming no answer
Riya
Vicklin
16:473:54
outgoing answered
checklist14/26
Ranjeet
17:160:52
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Anmol SAHNI
17:1818:39
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
2894795739
17:240:00
incoming no answer
Vishal Sharma
17:410:46
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
+14373835655
17:440:06
outgoing too short
Haziq Tareeq saleem
17:500:06
outgoing too short
Dharmpreet Singj
18:126:29
outgoing answered
checklist11/26
John patrick coloma
18:210:00
outgoing no answer
Priyanshu Chib
18:241:13
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Nelson Rajbhandari
18:437:22
outgoing answered
checklist19/26
Manjeet
19:0414:34
outgoing answered
checklist24/24
Adil Patel
19:290:42
outgoing voicemail
Jamesh Bhandari
19:350:05
outgoing too short
Ahmed Gomaa
19:387:23
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
Adeyemo Adesubokan
20:220:07
outgoing too short
Sarin
20:270:24
outgoing voicemail
John patrick coloma
20:300:00
outgoing no answer
tedt tedts
20:340:00
outgoing no answer
Jun Francisco
20:350:11
outgoing voicemail
Willam Rocha
20:371:53
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Willam Rocha
20:399:18
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 43 total

Landing-PGWP
18
Meta-Form-PGWP
8
Second Job Tunisia
7
Second Job Morocco
5
Web-Organic
3
SMM-Organic
1
Secon Job Overseas
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 21 of 43 leads called

Fastest
0 min
Riya Kathuria 17:00–21:00
called outside shift · 190 min on the clock
Slowest
195 min
Riya Kathuria 08:00–21:00
median 79 min · 22 leads never called · 2 unassigned, counted on 08:00–21:00

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 7 53 20 37.7% 0 1 14.3%
Reine Francis 7 29 6 20.7% 5 0 0.0%
Riya Kathuria 7 22 11 50.0% 1 1 14.3%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
43
Contacted
86
Qualified
6
Consultations
2

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

16:00–18:00 best connect
21/36
58.3%
20:00–21:00
13/25
52.0%
12:00–14:00
26/54
48.1%
18:00–20:00
19/53
35.8%
10:00–12:00
52/204
25.5%
08:00–10:00
30/135
22.2%
14:00–16:00 worst
1/10
10.0%
average 31.3% over 517 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
3
Qualified
6
In progress (contacted)
15
New / no activity
19

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 53 46:02 7:27:08 06:37 14:04 137
Reine Francis 29 34:53 4:38:53 09:25 14:04 132
Riya Kathuria 22 1:12:23 3:52:48 16:47 20:39 15
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 22 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
Hamza Daouelmakane 05:06 — Constantine no call —
Sourour Mabrouk 06:20 — Constantine no call —
Mohamed Amine Brahim 07:42 — — no call —
YASSINE FARZIZ 07:53 — — no call —
Adem Dridi 09:17 — Constantine no call —
Florent Renaud Njoki Elame 10:03 — Reine Francis no call —
Megharba Rachid 10:13 — Constantine no call —
Chaymaa Karmouny 11:43 — — no call —
Birat Aryal 11:50 — — no call —
Birat Aryal 11:58 — — no call —
Zied Koubaa 12:41 — — no call —
Doha Alaoui 13:17 — — no call —
Faith Esuabana 13:37 — Sara Habchi no call —
rose mary 13:56 — — no call —
sejida ben abdellatif 16:47 — Constantine no call —
Mohamed amine Hajji 16:51 — — no call —
Nma Rosemary 18:04 — — no call —
Cheikh Tidjani Tweylib 18:12 — Constantine no call —
El Mehdi Khalfane 18:17 — Constantine no call —
joselito Usi 20:57 — — no call —
ReZa Rahman 21:55 — — no call —
Inderjeet Singh 23:48 — — no call —
tedt tedts 17:19 20:34 (0:00) — 195 min —
Sudeep Thatikayala 09:47 12:53 (0:45) Sara Habchi 186 min voicemail
Rakin Farabee Kabir 00:13 11:01 (9:25) Reine Francis 182 min voicemail
Melben Baya Teruel 09:59 12:55 (0:03) Sara Habchi 176 min —
Jun Francisco 17:55 20:35 (0:11) Riya Kathuria 161 min voicemail
Willam Rocha 18:00 20:37 (1:53) Riya Kathuria 157 min 5/26
Ruel Bumanlag 03:08 09:31 (8:14) Reine Francis 91 min 16/24
Moizuddin Ahsan Syed 03:41 09:28 (0:28) Reine Francis 88 min voicemail
Aftab Hussain 00:06 09:27 (0:30) Reine Francis 87 min voicemail
Dhruv Sasani 00:12 09:25 (0:01) Reine Francis 86 min —
John patrick coloma 17:02 18:21 (0:00) — 79 min —
Sachin Paudel 04:54 09:09 (0:16) Sara Habchi 70 min voicemail
Pranay Matta 00:33 09:08 (0:30) Sara Habchi 68 min voicemail
Aman srivastav 06:09 09:05 (1:05) Sara Habchi 66 min voicemail
Adil Patel 18:45 19:29 (0:42) Riya Kathuria 45 min voicemail
Vishal Sharma 10:53 17:41 (0:46) Riya Kathuria 41 min 5/26
Haziq Tareeq saleem 17:28 17:50 (0:06) Riya Kathuria 22 min —
Darshan Kalpeshbhai Sompura 10:27 10:48 (7:56) Reine Francis 21 min 20/26
Anmol SAHNI 13:57 17:18 (18:39) Riya Kathuria 19 min 21/26
Birat Aryal 12:01 12:13 (0:30) Sara Habchi 12 min voicemail
Sarin 06:33 09:43 (0:29) Riya Kathuria off-shift voicemail

Booked consultations 2 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Simranjeet Singh Landing-PGWP Sara Habchi 11 Sep 06:04 12:46
Damanjeet Singh SMM-Organic Riya Kathuria 11 Sep 16:58 19:17

SMS 156 sent · 26 received · 75 contacts

Reply rate
17.3%
13 of 75 conversations
Median reply
162 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 78 10 48 41 6 14.6%
Reine Francis 67 10 33 33 7 21.2%
Riya Kathuria 11 6 5 1 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 10 conversations where the client wrote last

Arvinder Singh 06:36 · Sara Habchi 1043 min
I'm available now
Ahmed Gomaa 12:00 · Reine Francis 719 min
Ok thanks
Sarin 12:39 · Reine Francis 681 min
Where is your office
Saurabh 13:23 · Sara Habchi 637 min
Hi there, I am not looking for immigration services. Thanks
Manpreet Brar 14:18 · Sara Habchi 582 min
Liked “with us. You can get back to me whenever available. ”
Sachin Paudel 14:25 · Sara Habchi 575 min
We can talk monday around 9am
Hariharan N Ponniah 15:30 · Sara Habchi 510 min
Hi, I work 8 to 4 Monday to Friday and hence I will be able to take calls after 4 pm only. Sorey about that.
Anmol SAHNI 16:18 · Reine Francis 462 min
5PM-9PM
+14373835655 17:50 · Riya Kathuria 369 min
Ok
Genious Gigla Muradzi 19:18 · Reine Francis 281 min
thank you

WhatsApp calls 20 calls · 6 out / 14 in · 41:10 talk

4 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Riya, Sara, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 12 2 10 7 24:17 4/7
Reine Francis 6 2 4 2 0:21 2/2
Riya Kathuria 2 2 0 2 16:32 2/2
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
3 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 9 of 11 conversations

Sara Habchi Arvinder 06:43 · 8:55 21/26

What was good

The caller thoroughly assessed Arvinder's situation, discussing work experience, language skills, and PR pathways in detail. They clearly explained the consultation process and next steps, including payment and scheduling, which shows good control of the call flow. The caller also mentioned the ICCI license and office location, adding credibility.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, which is important for professionalism and trust. Age and education were not asked, missing key eligibility factors. There was no handling of common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' which could improve conversion.
Sara Habchi Abiral 07:10 · 1:00 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly communicated the next step by explaining the consultation agreement and invoice, and asked for a preferred booking date, showing good follow-up intent. The caller also confirmed WhatsApp as a contact method, facilitating easy communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or timelines, which are important to engage the lead effectively and build trust.
Sara Habchi +14374992334 10:05 · 6:45 9/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and timelines, providing detailed information about the two-part consultation and follow-up procedures. They also emphasized the importance of legal documentation and mentioned the RCIC licensed consultant, which adds credibility. The caller offered a next step by encouraging booking a paid consultation and arranged a follow-up date, confirming WhatsApp contact details for ease of communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. There was no assessment of eligibility or presentation of a suitable immigration program. The call lacked handling of common objections and did not summarize agreements at the end, missing opportunities to build rapport and clarify next steps fully.
Sara Habchi +14374992334 10:05 · 6:43 17/26

What was good

The caller thoroughly explained the consultation process and emphasized the importance of legal documentation, stating, "we will most definitely be advising you to work on all the documentations to be legal 100%." They also clearly offered a next step with a paid consultation and locked a follow-up date, showing good control of the sales process.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the client's name or basic background details such as citizenship or immigration status. This lack of initial rapport and information gathering weakens the overall engagement and personalization of the call.
Reine Francis +16473816051 10:23 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The call was connected and both parties could hear each other, which is a basic technical success.

What went wrong

The call was extremely short and contained only repeated checks of audio connection without any actual conversation or sales effort.
Sara Habchi Simranjeet 11:37 · 0:28 24/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed client information and clearly explaining the immigration options and next steps. They handled objections well and ensured the client understood the process, mentioning the RCIC license and offering a paid consultation.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have improved commitment and conversion. Otherwise, the call was well-managed with no compliance issues or missed opportunities.
Sara Habchi Simranjeet 11:39 · 0:25 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and informative conversation with Simranjeet, confirming key details and explaining multiple immigration pathways clearly. They effectively presented the company's services, shared RCIC licensing information, and offered a clear next step with a paid consultation, including booking details and contact confirmation.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's age or education, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. Additionally, no objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were addressed, missing opportunities to handle potential hesitations.
Riya Kathuria +14379996422 18:26 · 16:05 2/26

What was good

The call was a real conversation with the lead, showing some engagement and casual rapport, such as discussing plans to call on Monday and light banter about food. The caller maintained a friendly tone throughout.

What went wrong

The caller failed to introduce themselves or the company, did not ask for the lead's name or relevant immigration details, and did not present any program or next steps. The conversation was unfocused and did not progress toward a sale or consultation booking.
Riya Kathuria Smith 19:34 · 0:27 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and referenced a previous conversation, showing continuity. They also successfully locked in a specific callback date, saying 'I'll call you on Monday then.'

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any qualifying questions or offer next steps like a paid consultation. There was no attempt to confirm contact details or summarize agreements, missing opportunities to advance the sale.

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 14:01 (979 min ago) offline
Riya Kathuria 20:47 (573 min ago) offline
Sara Habchi 13:55 (985 min ago) offline
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 63 of 37 live conversations

Sara Habchi Abirul 07:00 · 10:13 21/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Abirul, confirming detailed personal and immigration information and clearly explaining the PR pathways and next steps. The caller also carefully explained the pricing and consultation process, maintaining compliance by avoiding any illegal promises.

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. These missed opportunities could affect conversion and clarity for the lead.
Sara Habchi Aman 09:05 · 1:05 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating, "this is Sarah. I am a case manager from Evernorth." They also referenced the lead's form submission and the purpose of the call regarding PR assistance, which is appropriate for a first contact voicemail.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and no live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. Although a message was left, it could have been more compelling by including a clear next step or invitation to call back. There was no confirmation of contact details or attempt to lock a follow-up appointment.
Sara Habchi Pranay 09:08 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or gather information. The message could have included a callback number or email for easier response, but overall it was a decent voicemail.
Sara Habchi — 09:09 · 0:16 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to create a callback interest.
Sara Habchi Maria 09:23 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying herself and the company, and referencing the lead's prior contact. The message invites the lead to return the call to schedule a conversation, which is appropriate for this stage.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no direct interaction occurred and no selling or qualification took place. The message could have been slightly clearer or more concise, but overall it was adequate for a voicemail.
Sara Habchi — 09:25 · 0:17 0/0

What was good

The caller reached a voicemail and left a message indicating the customer is not available. The message was clear and polite.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was missed.
Reine Francis Ahmad 09:26 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message included a call to action, asking the lead to respond with a preferred time and contact method.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The voicemail did not specify any next steps beyond requesting a callback, and no consultation was offered or locked in.
Reine Francis Asaf 09:27 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and providing contact options.

What went wrong

No conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was missed.
Sara Habchi Neil 09:28 · 0:41 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating, "Hi, Neil, this is Sarah. I'm a case manager with Evernorth." This is a professional and clear introduction that sets the context for the lead.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or gather information from the lead. The caller left a brief message but did not attempt to provide more details or encourage a callback, which could have improved engagement.
Reine Francis — 09:28 · 0:28 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 via WhatsApp or message 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 include a direct offer of a paid consultation or next steps, which could improve callback rates.
Reine Francis — 09:29 · 0:39 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 at their convenience.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or gather information. No message was left beyond the initial greeting, so no further follow-up details were provided.
Reine Francis — 09:30 · 0:31 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 via WhatsApp or message 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 detailed information about next steps or services.
Reine Francis — 09:31 · 8:14 16/24

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the client's current immigration status and explaining the next steps thoroughly. They offered a paid consultation, locked a specific date and time, and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name, citizenship, age, education, or work experience, missing important qualification details. They also did not summarize the agreements at the end, which could help reinforce the next steps and client commitment.
Reine Francis Siren 09:43 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and providing contact options.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further during the call.
Reine Francis — 09:43 · 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 — 09:45 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The call reached voicemail promptly, avoiding wasted time. No message was left, so no follow-up is needed.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or leave contact details.
Sara Habchi Zafar 09:47 · 3:36 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good connection. She gathered detailed information about the lead's education, work experience, and language proficiency, which shows thorough fact-finding. No illegal promises were made during the call, maintaining compliance.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's citizenship or country of residence, missing important context. There was no assessment of eligibility or presentation of a suitable program, nor any explanation of next steps or timelines. The call ended abruptly without offering a paid consultation or confirming contact details, which are key sales steps.
Sara Habchi — 09:51 · 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 — 10:02 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller reached voicemail promptly and allowed the message to play clearly.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no information was provided to engage the lead or encourage a callback.
Reine Francis Edmund 10:03 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Edmund, reminding him about the invoice and follow-up. The message was concise and respectful, encouraging a response without pressure.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification took place. The caller did not introduce themselves or the company in the message, which could improve professionalism in future voicemails.
Reine Francis Najeeb 10:07 · 0:29 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them of the previous discussion about starting a consultation. This message was concise and respectful, encouraging the lead to respond if their intentions have changed.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live interaction, there was no opportunity to engage or advance the sales process further. No message was left beyond the standard voicemail, so no additional information was provided to entice the lead.
Reine Francis — 10:24 · 5:34 15/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and available immigration pathways, mentioning the RCIC license and CEO involvement which builds trust. They handled the lead's hesitation well by offering to send the agreement and invoice via email and scheduling a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking for the lead's name and did not gather key information like age, education, language proficiency, or work experience, which are important for eligibility assessment. Also, they did not lock a specific appointment date or summarize the agreements at the end, which could improve conversion.
Reine Francis — 10:35 · 0:53 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating their name and purpose.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or qualification could take place. No message was left for the lead to respond to.
Reine Francis — 10:36 · 1:56 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead by referencing a prior email and the PR application, showing some preparation. They tried to clarify the company name and purpose of the call.

What went wrong

The call was a wrong number, and the caller did not clearly introduce themselves or the company at the start. They failed to confirm the lead's identity or gather any relevant information before the call ended abruptly with the other party denying the connection.
Sara Habchi Muhammad 10:36 · 0:49 5/26

What was good

The caller greeted Muhammad warmly and clearly identified herself and the company, Evernorth. She confirmed the lead's name and reminded him of their previous conversation, maintaining a polite and professional tone throughout.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked depth; no key qualifying questions were asked, and no program or next steps were presented. The caller did not secure a specific appointment time, only a vague indication of follow-up, missing an opportunity to advance the sale.
Sara Habchi — 10:38 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief with no speech from the lead, so no selling was possible.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage or leave a message; the call ended after only 'Hello? Hello?' with no response.
Sara Habchi Shanda 10:41 · 0:41 7/25

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, 'this is Sarah from Evernorth.' She handled the 'I'll think about it' objection well by acknowledging the lead's hesitation and leaving the door open for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any new information about the lead's situation, such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. There was no attempt to assess eligibility, present a program, or explain next steps. The call ended without locking a consultation date or confirming contact details, missing opportunities to advance the sale.
Sara Habchi Manpreet 10:43 · 0:28 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing a previous call, which is professional and personalizes the follow-up.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or advance the sales process since the call went to voicemail. No next steps could be confirmed or objections handled.
Reine Francis Darshan 10:48 · 7:56 20/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's name early on. They explained the consultation process thoroughly and presented relevant immigration programs, showing good knowledge and professionalism. The caller also secured a potential appointment date and confirmed contact details effectively.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. There was no handling of common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Including these would strengthen the sales approach and client engagement.
Sara Habchi — 10:51 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the call reached a voicemail service and did not waste time trying to push the conversation further.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, which could have been an opportunity to briefly introduce the company and invite the lead to call back.
Reine Francis — 11:01 · 9:25 0/0

What was good

The caller reached voicemail and left a clear greeting instructing the lead to stay on the line. This is appropriate for an unanswered call.

What went wrong

No message from the caller beyond the repeated greeting was recorded, which may reduce the chance of a callback. Leaving a brief message with contact details or reason for calling would improve effectiveness.
Sara Habchi Nicholas 11:02 · 0:45 6/12

What was good

The caller politely followed up with Nicholas and confirmed willingness to call back next week, showing respect for his decision to discuss with his wife. The introduction was clear, stating the company and purpose of the call.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather key information such as Nicholas's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, and did not confirm any next steps with a specific date or contact details. There was no handling of objections or summary of agreements, which could improve engagement and conversion.
Sara Habchi Sudipta 11:11 · 2:01 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and used the lead's name naturally. She offered a next step by explaining how to schedule a consultation and confirmed contact details via email and WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any key information such as citizenship, immigration status, or eligibility, nor did she present any program details or explain next steps clearly. No specific appointment was locked, and no summary of agreements was provided. The call was mostly about scheduling rather than selling or assessing eligibility.
Reine Francis — 11:13 · 1:45 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company right away, saying, 'This is Ren, Senior Leader at Evernorth.' They also offered a next step by discussing booking a consultation, showing initiative to move the process forward.

What went wrong

The caller missed many opportunities to gather important client information such as name, goals, and immigration status. They did not lock in a specific consultation date or confirm contact details, leaving the lead uncertain. There was no summary of agreements, which could have helped clarify next steps and improve commitment.
Reine Francis — 11:22 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message asking the lead to get back to proceed with the consultation.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead during this call.
Reine Francis — 11:24 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear, polite voicemail message referencing the previous discussion and inviting the lead to respond. The message was concise and professional, encouraging follow-up.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller did not leave detailed information about next steps or contact details beyond the request to get back.
Reine Francis Thomas 11:26 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Thomas, referencing their previous discussion and inviting him to book a consultation.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not include contact details or next steps beyond booking.
Reine Francis Samad 11:27 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Samad, specifying the need to confirm the appointment by the end of the shift. The message was concise and included relevant details about the consultation booking.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification could be done. The caller did not leave a detailed message about next steps beyond confirming the appointment, which might limit lead engagement.
Reine Francis Ersan 11:29 · 0:28 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 and previous email. The message was concise and encouraged the lead to respond with any questions or readiness to proceed.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or advance the sales process directly. No next steps or details could be confirmed on this call.
Reine Francis — 11:32 · 9:28 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirmed the client's current immigration status, and presented appropriate program options. They handled objections well and successfully offered and locked in a consultation date, also confirming contact details.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or gather key personal details like age, education, or language proficiency. There was no clear summary of agreements at the end, which could help reinforce next steps and client understanding.
Sara Habchi Uriel 12:00 · 1:44 13/26

What was good

The caller confirmed the lead's name and immigration status clearly, asking relevant questions such as "you are currently on a refugee status in Canada?" and assessed eligibility accurately by stating they cannot assist with PR for refugees. The conversation was polite and clear despite the language barrier.

What went wrong

The caller did not explain next steps or offer a paid consultation, nor did they confirm contact details or summarize the call. There was no attempt to handle objections or present alternative solutions. Also, the caller did not mention their RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could build trust.
Sara Habchi Barrett 12:13 · 0:30 0/0

What was good

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

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 next step or offer a consultation explicitly.
Sara Habchi Supreet 12:23 · 1:35 7/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by asking about their decision on booking a consultation and handled the hesitation well, saying, "if this company like don't support me... then maybe." The caller also offered a next step by discussing the consultation opportunity.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing a key first impression. Important qualifying questions such as citizenship, immigration status, and goals were not asked. No date or time was locked for the consultation, and contact details were not confirmed. The call ended abruptly without summarizing agreements.
Sara Habchi Paris 12:30 · 7:15 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Paris, confirming all relevant personal and immigration details clearly. They explained the PR process well and handled objections effectively, including clarifying the paid consultation step.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details at the end. Also, there was no summary of agreements before ending the call, missing an opportunity to reinforce next steps clearly.
Sara Habchi John 12:43 · 1:38 8/26

What was good

The caller successfully locked a specific date and time for the consultation and clearly offered the next step by sharing the invoice link on WhatsApp. They confirmed the preferred mode of consultation and maintained polite communication throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any information about the lead's background or immigration goals. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or timelines, and no summary of agreements at the end, which missed opportunities to build rapport and clarify next steps fully.
Sara Habchi John 12:45 · 0:30 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully secured a specific appointment time, confirming the booking for Wednesday at 12 p.m. They clearly communicated the next step involving payment and encouraged prompt action to secure the slot.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any client information or discuss the client's immigration goals or status. There was no summary of agreements or confirmation of contact details, which are important for clarity and professionalism.
Sara Habchi Carlos 12:50 · 0:58 3/26

What was good

The caller maintained a polite and professional tone, checking in with Carlos about the consultation and offering to schedule a follow-up call if needed. The caller respected the lead's decision to review the contract further and did not pressure him.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing an important opportunity to reinforce branding. There was no attempt to gather or confirm key client information such as immigration status, goals, or contact details. The call lacked any sales progression steps like offering a next consultation or locking a date, making it a missed opportunity to advance the lead.
Sara Habchi Sujip 12:53 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's name and reason for the call. The message was polite and professional.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail, so no real conversation took place and no selling steps could be completed. The caller did not leave a full message explaining next steps or offering a consultation, which would have added value.
Sara Habchi Priya 13:11 · 1:20 8/26

What was good

The caller successfully confirmed and locked a specific appointment date, saying "you want to book for the upcoming Wednesday, which would be the 23rd." They also confirmed sending the invoice link via WhatsApp, ensuring clear next steps.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any client information such as immigration goals or status. The call focused only on scheduling and payment, missing many key qualification and selling opportunities.
Riya Kathuria Vicklin 16:47 · 3:54 14/26

What was good

The caller successfully booked a consultation appointment and confirmed key details like work permit expiry and work experience. They also clarified the scope of services and ensured the lead knew what documents to prepare, showing good client care.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important information such as citizenship, age, education, and to assess eligibility or explain the process and timelines. They also did not highlight the RCIC licence or past successes, which could build trust. The call ended without a clear summary of agreements.
Riya Kathuria Ranjeet 17:16 · 0:52 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and confirmed the lead's name. The caller was polite and attempted to schedule a better time to talk, respecting the lead's availability.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not progress beyond introduction and scheduling a callback. No information about the lead's situation or needs was gathered, and no next steps or consultation were offered. The opportunity to engage the lead was missed.
Riya Kathuria Anmol 17:18 · 18:39 21/26

What was good

The caller established a thorough and professional conversation with Anmol, confirming key details such as age, education, work experience, and immigration status. They clearly explained the program, eligibility, and legal aspects, addressing concerns about career changes and IRCC scrutiny effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific date and time for the next step, which could risk losing the lead. Also, the call ended without summarizing agreements, missing an opportunity to reinforce commitments and clarity.
Riya Kathuria — 17:41 · 0:46 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, "This is Ria calling from Evernorth Immigration." She successfully arranged a specific date and time for the next call, locking in Monday after 4 o'clock.

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 programs, eligibility, or next steps beyond scheduling a callback. Contact details were not confirmed, and no summary was provided at the end.
Riya Kathuria — 18:12 · 6:29 11/26

What was good

The caller provided detailed information about the work permit extension process and the need for French language proficiency, explaining the timelines and eligibility factors clearly. They also clarified the difference between employer-dependent and profile-dependent processes, helping the lead understand the options available.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or confirm contact details. There was no offer of a paid consultation or locking in a next step, and no summary of agreements at the end, which weakens the call's effectiveness and follow-up potential.
Riya Kathuria Ria 18:24 · 1:13 4/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by asking for her name and encouraged communication via WhatsApp, which can facilitate follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any relevant immigration information or explain services. The conversation was confusing and lacked structure, with repeated questions and no clear progress toward a consultation or next steps.
Riya Kathuria — 18:43 · 7:22 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and gathered detailed information about the lead's immigration status, education, and work experience. They effectively explained the PR pathways, the consultation process, and addressed the lead's hesitation with "I'll think about this and call you back."

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm citizenship or contact details, which are important for personalization and follow-up. Also, no specific appointment date or time was locked, and the call ended without summarizing the agreements. These missed steps could reduce conversion chances.
Riya Kathuria Manjeet 19:04 · 14:34 24/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional consultation, gathering detailed information and clearly explaining the services and next steps. They successfully booked a specific appointment and confirmed contact details, ensuring the lead understood the process and payment requirements.

What went wrong

There were no significant issues in the call. The caller handled the conversation smoothly without making any illegal promises and maintained clarity throughout. No objections were raised, so handling those was not applicable.
Riya Kathuria — 19:29 · 0:42 0/0

What was good

The caller identified themselves and the company clearly in the voicemail greeting, which is professional and helpful for the lead.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and ended quickly without leaving a message or attempting to engage the lead further. Leaving a brief message could have improved the chance of a callback.
Riya Kathuria Emir 19:38 · 7:23 21/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and engaged Emir in a detailed discussion about his immigration status and goals. She explained the consultation process thoroughly and addressed objections about the value of the service effectively, maintaining a professional tone throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure the next step. Also, education details were not asked, and there was no summary of agreements at the end, which could have strengthened the call closure.
Riya Kathuria Sarin 20:27 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and reminding them of previous contact. The message invites the lead to call back to discuss their pathway to PR, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No issues, but since this was a voicemail, no live selling or qualification could take place.
Riya Kathuria — 20:35 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no live person on the line.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.
Riya Kathuria William 20:37 · 1:53 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and confirmed the lead's identity. She also asked about the client's current immigration status and expiry date of the work permit.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather key information such as citizenship, immigration goals, or language skills, nor did she present any program or offer a next step. The call ended abruptly without handling objections or confirming contact details, missing opportunities to advance the sale.
Riya Kathuria — 20:39 · 9:18 21/26

What was good

The caller provided a thorough explanation of services and clearly assessed the lead's profile, asking relevant questions such as age, education, and language scores. They also explained the consultation process well and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask the lead's name or confirm citizenship and current immigration status, which are important for a full assessment. Additionally, no specific appointment date or time was locked, which could reduce conversion chances.
data check · 16 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads without a phone number · 15 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included