EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Monday, 14 September 2026

built 15 Sep 2026, 06:20 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
108
96 out / 12 in
Leads
92
new today
Reached
32
93 answered − 39 vm, 22 short
Qualified
2
good status
Booked
5
moved to 1.4
Messages
298
SMS
Follow-up
76
19 reached, 34 vm, 12 short, 11 missed
Lead→Booked
5.4%
daily rate

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

070911131517192123
Sara
Timothy Issac
08:301:14
outgoing answered
checklist6/24
Timothy Issac
08:320:36
outgoing no speech
2894661244
08:330:31
incoming answered
Nelson Adamos
09:070:05
outgoing too short
Raja
09:220:00
outgoing no answer
Thiago Sansivieri
09:450:07
outgoing too short
Md Saif Ullah Nabeel
09:530:00
outgoing no answer
Alankrit Singh
09:560:26
outgoing voicemail
Amer Imtiaz Ali
09:580:36
outgoing voicemail
Aashish Poudel
10:000:04
outgoing too short
Prem Chamana
10:020:05
outgoing too short
Avinash Yatham
10:130:03
outgoing too short
Siddhanth
10:140:03
outgoing too short
𝒮𝒶𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒽 𝒮𝒽𝒶𝒽
10:220:05
outgoing too short
Kika Anyabuine
10:300:00
outgoing no answer
Umbar Chopra
10:340:07
outgoing too short
+15488835363
10:360:06
outgoing too short
Akhil Ponnam
10:380:23
outgoing no speech
Akhil Ponnam
10:391:28
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Vedant Kapadia
10:420:27
outgoing voicemail
Uyi Igbinoba
10:440:02
outgoing too short
Samuel Robert Antony Flay
10:460:24
outgoing no speech
Samuel Robert Antony Flay
10:460:58
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Samuel Robert Antony Flay
10:480:59
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Nikita Shrestha
11:010:11
outgoing no speech
Nikita Shrestha
11:1112:13
outgoing answered
checklist20/24
Prem Chamana
12:320:04
outgoing too short
Prem Chamana
12:338:18
incoming answered
Jaskaran Singh
12:5111:11
outgoing answered
checklist23/25
Manav Patel
13:3117:50
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
2894661244
14:070:00
incoming no answer
2894661244
20:290:00
incoming no answer
Reine
Jai Jerom
09:000:00
outgoing no answer
Joselito Usi
09:370:24
outgoing voicemail
Miguel
09:400:29
outgoing voicemail
Joselito Usi
09:430:24
outgoing voicemail
Reza Rahman
09:450:24
outgoing voicemail
Inderjeet Singh
09:480:22
outgoing voicemail
Josefin James
09:490:19
outgoing voicemail
Taha Sajid
09:500:35
outgoing voicemail
Sukhpreet Singh
09:519:34
outgoing answered
checklist14/26
Sharanjit
10:050:36
outgoing voicemail
Rajesh Tiwarie
10:130:00
outgoing no answer
Avneet Kaur
10:131:15
outgoing voicemail
Rajesh Tiwarie
10:140:00
outgoing no answer
Avneet Kaur
10:210:13
outgoing voicemail
Shabbir
10:210:35
outgoing voicemail
Ron Casipe
10:220:31
outgoing voicemail
Bhaviya Chopra
10:230:41
outgoing voicemail
Lithin
10:240:24
outgoing voicemail
Olusoji Ogunleye
10:2621:59
outgoing answered
checklist15/26
Rohit Grover
11:090:11
outgoing voicemail
Reynante Bendaña
11:100:15
outgoing voicemail
Oleksandr Shkriuba
11:100:32
outgoing voicemail
Ralph Sequeira
11:129:12
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
2892990235
11:310:00
incoming no answer
Jay Lord Generalao
11:330:36
outgoing voicemail
Anandu Rajesh
11:346:00
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
Krishna Neupane
11:580:32
outgoing voicemail
Abhijith Suresh
12:000:33
outgoing voicemail
Zaid Khadki
12:100:32
outgoing voicemail
Jaipal Singh
12:110:40
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Rishi Gupta
12:128:57
outgoing answered
checklist19/26
Bhaviya Chopra
12:360:00
incoming no answer
Prashant Kumar
12:380:34
outgoing voicemail
Jai Jerom
12:390:00
outgoing no answer
Harrowing Blizzard Twenty-six
12:391:10
outgoing voicemail
Tanuj Verma
12:410:17
outgoing voicemail
Ranvijay Singh
12:414:13
outgoing answered
checklist10/26
Tanuj Verma
12:420:00
incoming no answer
Ranvijay Singh
12:460:10
outgoing voicemail
Ranvijay Singh
12:460:24
outgoing voicemail
Miguel
12:490:41
outgoing voicemail
Tanuj Verma
13:090:00
incoming no answer
Tanuj Verma
13:090:00
incoming no answer
Riya
Adil Patel
16:260:40
outgoing voicemail
Manoj Hariharan
16:311:01
outgoing answered
checklist4/24
Manoj Hariharan
16:338:37
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
susil giri
17:022:35
outgoing answered
checklist14/23
2894795739
17:055:21
incoming answered
Anmol SAHNI
17:183:43
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
Anmol SAHNI
17:227:41
outgoing answered
checklist8/24
Anmol SAHNI
17:300:23
outgoing no speech
2894795739
17:303:13
incoming answered
kavya khatri
17:520:09
outgoing too short
Mohammed fazil Pilakkattil
17:560:08
outgoing too short
Ritish Kumar
18:060:09
outgoing too short
Ritik Sharma
18:170:41
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Khac Thanh Trung Dinh
18:520:25
outgoing voicemail
Akshaykumar Patel
18:560:28
outgoing answered
checklist6/24
Zelig Ukeje
18:570:51
outgoing voicemail
Zelig Ukeje
18:582:30
outgoing answered
checklist12/26
Zelig Ukeje
19:010:39
outgoing voicemail
Samarth Patel
19:080:05
outgoing too short
Dickson Wong
19:090:07
outgoing too short
Ting Zhou
19:130:05
outgoing too short
Emircan Aktaş
19:167:18
outgoing answered
checklist24/26
Thiago Sansivieri
19:280:05
outgoing too short
Zufnayd Tofluro
19:394:07
outgoing answered
checklist15/26
Zufnayd Tofluro
19:510:47
outgoing answered
checklist6/24
Akhil Ponnam
20:040:03
outgoing too short
Akshaykumar Patel
20:078:10
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
Akshaykumar Patel
20:161:11
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Vishal Sharma
20:330:06
outgoing too short
Jamesh Bhandari
20:360:06
outgoing too short
Michael
20:380:05
outgoing too short
Subodh Joshi
20:409:53
outgoing answered
checklist23/26
Michael
21:270:00
incoming no answer
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 92 total

Second Job Morocco
27
Landing-PGWP
16
Second Job Tunisia
14
Meta-Form-PGWP
12
Secon Job Overseas
9
Second-Job
7
Reception-Calls
3
Web-Organic
3
Client-Referall
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 17 of 92 leads called

Fastest
0 min
Riya Kathuria 17:00–21:00
called outside shift · 5 min on the clock
Slowest
130 min
Riya Kathuria 17:00–21:00
146 min on the clock
median 62 min · 75 leads never called

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 7 32 9 28.1% 1 1 14.3%
Reine Francis 2 43 7 16.3% 1 2 100.0%
Riya Kathuria 15 33 16 48.5% 0 1 6.7%
Jonathan Gutman 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
92
Contacted
96
Qualified
2
Consultations
5

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

16:00–18:00 best connect
26/45
57.8%
20:00–21:00
16/32
50.0%
12:00–14:00
28/61
45.9%
18:00–20:00
25/67
37.3%
10:00–12:00
47/194
24.2%
08:00–10:00
25/122
20.5%
14:00–16:00 worst
1/6
16.7%
average 31.9% over 527 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
1
Qualified
2
In progress (contacted)
26
New / no activity
63

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 32 54:42 11:59:07 08:30 20:29 131
Reine Francis 43 1:00:35 4:09:45 09:00 13:09 172
Riya Kathuria 33 1:07:16 5:00:51 16:26 21:27 28
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 75 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
ashmit basra 00:10 — Sara Habchi no call —
Narinder Singh Brar 00:59 — Sara Habchi no call —
Deepak Sha James 02:00 — — no call —
Orente Temiotan 02:00 — Constantine no call —
Harsh juyal 02:59 — Sara Habchi no call —
Abdul Hadi Abdul Lathif 04:18 — Sara Habchi no call —
Fahim Mohammed p 04:36 — — no call —
GIKUE NJOYA Elischa Georgina 05:46 — — no call —
SOUAD OULDOUALI 06:24 — — no call —
Fayaz Ali Mohammad 06:28 — Reine Francis no call —
Ridouane Ahntate 06:49 — — no call —
Fortune Eziefula 06:52 — — no call —
Christopher Karim Guizard Sylla Biyoghe 06:52 — Constantine no call —
NISRINE ABALY 06:53 — — no call —
Noureddine Blibli 07:00 — — no call —
Hichem Bensalah 07:05 — — no call —
salma chaieb 07:05 — — no call —
Nijesh Paduvilay , 07:14 — Constantine no call —
zahra Zhar 07:17 — — no call —
Chaker Beltaief 07:18 — Constantine no call —
Achraf Ibrahim 07:18 — — no call —
jordach MAKAYA 07:22 — — no call —
Hafsa Idsaid 07:22 — — no call —
Koutouan Mangle Louis Methuselah 07:25 — Constantine no call —
Dan Almenar 07:30 — — no call —
ATul N Notna 07:30 — Sara Habchi no call —
waer wael 07:39 — — no call —
zaid ZENTAR 07:40 — — no call —
waer wael 07:40 — — no call —
Oulaid Abdelmounaim 07:43 — — no call —
Oussama Karouch 08:11 — — no call —
Kouakou brou venceslas Kouassi 08:13 — Constantine no call —
ousama lasri 08:14 — — no call —
ayoub chbira 08:23 — — no call —
Hiba Kabil 08:29 — — no call —
Anas Hammaoui 08:51 — — no call —
Zahia Touati 08:53 — Constantine no call —
Rihem Omrani 09:06 — — no call —
Achraf Berrihi 09:24 — — no call —
JIHED SAIDANI 09:50 — — no call —
Mohammed Fakir 10:20 — — no call —
Balyatish Chamakura 10:37 — Constantine no call —
Mohamed Aziz Benboubaker 10:58 — — no call —
Debu 11:02 — — no call —
Stagger Nibel 11:02 — — no call —
Hassan Oubrahim 11:26 — — no call —
blumin tst 11:27 — Jonathan Gutman no call —
Daksh Kumar 11:46 — Sara Habchi no call —
RACHID AIT MOHAND 11:50 — Constantine no call —
MEGBLI YOSRA 11:57 — — no call —
Amine Asri 12:31 — — no call —
Oussama Benlahmar 12:43 — — no call —
SAAD MABROR 12:55 — — no call —
Amira Ben Khelifa 13:05 — Constantine no call —
Joseph 13:20 — — no call —
Kathia Paul-Normand 13:35 — — no call —
zakaria walad 13:41 — — no call —
Arij Hamid 14:36 — — no call —
Mohamed Aziz Chaabani 15:29 — — no call —
shrutiben panchal 16:43 — Constantine no call —
Ayoub Hammouch 17:01 — — no call —
Soumaya Elfassi 17:11 — — no call —
KAREN ANDREA ZAMORA QUINTANA 18:06 — — no call —
Nasserallah Khadli 18:26 — — no call —
Afra Mehreen 18:48 — — no call —
mossaab amimar 19:26 — — no call —
Adil Karmas 20:15 — Constantine no call —
HAMZA ASLIKH 20:59 — — no call —
Sanket Mehta 22:07 — — no call —
Abhishek Macwan 22:09 — — no call —
Arshan Mulla 22:32 — — no call —
Rushit Jetani 22:33 — — no call —
𝓐𝓷𝓼𝓱 22:41 — — no call —
Bhavik Bhavik 22:51 — — no call —
Mohamed Amine Elleuch 23:12 — — no call —
Dickson Wong 16:43 19:09 (0:07) Riya Kathuria 130 min —
Samarth Patel 16:40 19:08 (0:05) Riya Kathuria 129 min —
Zelig Ukeje 16:17 18:57 (0:51) Riya Kathuria 118 min voicemail
Akshaykumar Patel 16:01 18:56 (0:28) Riya Kathuria 116 min 6/24
Khac Thanh Trung Dinh 14:51 18:52 (0:25) Riya Kathuria 112 min voicemail
Ting Zhou 17:26 19:13 (0:05) Riya Kathuria 107 min —
Ritish Kumar 13:49 18:06 (0:09) Riya Kathuria 66 min —
Emircan Aktaş 18:12 19:16 (7:18) Riya Kathuria 63 min 24/26
Miguel 08:38 09:40 (0:29) Reine Francis 62 min voicemail
Mohammed fazil Pilakkattil 13:44 17:56 (0:08) Riya Kathuria 56 min —
kavya khatri 13:34 17:52 (0:09) Riya Kathuria 53 min —
Michael 19:45 20:38 (0:05) Riya Kathuria 53 min —
Subodh Joshi 20:35 20:40 (9:53) Riya Kathuria 5 min 23/26
susil giri 13:07 17:02 (2:35) Riya Kathuria 2 min 14/23
Thiago Sansivieri 09:40 09:45 (0:07) Riya Kathuria off-shift —
Manoj Hariharan 12:27 16:31 (1:01) Riya Kathuria off-shift 4/24
Ritik Sharma 14:34 18:17 (0:41) Sara Habchi off-shift 5/26

Booked consultations 5 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Brij Trivedi Landing-PGWP Reine Francis 24 Aug 11:39 11:21
Emil Bayramov Yana-Referral Yana Kizner 28 Aug 22:39 12:25
Joyce Osadolor Client-Referall Reine Francis 14 Sep 12:49 12:59
Kenedy Bonsu Meta-Form-PGWP Sara Habchi 13 Sep 11:58 14:03
Anmol SAHNI Landing-PGWP Riya Kathuria 11 Sep 13:57 17:29

SMS 278 sent · 20 received · 96 contacts

Reply rate
12.6%
12 of 95 conversations
Median reply
5 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 115 11 38 32 3 9.4%
Reine Francis 149 8 62 62 9 14.5%
Riya Kathuria 14 1 7 1 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 8 conversations where the client wrote last

Lakshay Gumber 08:57 · Reine Francis 902 min
On whatsapp i already texted you
Pramod Karki 10:12 · Reine Francis 827 min
Thanks for your message. You can contact me through email.
Miguel 10:22 · Reine Francis 818 min
Hi, is this a good time to talk?
Zufnayd Tofluro 11:05 · Sara Habchi 775 min
Yeah
Saugat Chand 11:47 · Sara Habchi 733 min
Hi, I’m saugat.. I applied application to you for pr pathway
+16476719203 15:38 · Reine Francis 501 min
Hi Reine, I'm Kishore. I already pinged you in Whatsapp and shared my details
Akshaykumar Patel 16:02 · Reine Francis 477 min
Okay
Abhishek Macwan 22:10 · Reine Francis 109 min
8 am Tuesday

WhatsApp calls 29 calls · 14 out / 15 in · 24:53 talk

2 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Riya, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 16 9 7 5 14:53 2/5
Reine Francis 10 3 7 3 9:21 1/3
Riya Kathuria 3 2 1 1 0:39 1/1
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 9 conversations

Sara Habchi Timothy 08:33 · 0:16 24/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Timothy, confirming detailed personal and immigration information and clearly explaining the PR pathways and services available. They effectively handled objections and offered a paid consultation as the next step, demonstrating strong knowledge and compliance throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure the lead's commitment more firmly.
Sara Habchi Timothy 08:33 · 0:26 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Timothy, confirming detailed personal and immigration information and clearly explaining the PR pathways and next steps. They effectively offered a paid consultation and confirmed contact details, providing a comprehensive summary at the end.

What went wrong

The caller did not attempt to lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure a firm commitment. Additionally, common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not addressed during the call.
Reine Francis Anna 11:54 · 0:20 3/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by using her name, 'Hi Anna,' which helps personalize the interaction. The caller also listened and responded appropriately to the lead's comments about payment issues, showing attentiveness.

What went wrong

The call lacked any formal introduction or mention of the company, which is important for professionalism. No qualifying questions or information gathering took place, and no next steps or consultation offers were made. The call was very short and did not progress toward any sales objective.
Reine Francis Joyce 12:24 · 8:58 17/26

What was good

The caller engaged in a detailed conversation with Joyce, clearly explaining the consultation process and next steps, including booking a specific date and time. They also highlighted the RCIC license and past successes, which helps build trust. The call avoided any illegal promises and offered a clear paid consultation option.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask important qualifying questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience. They also did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' nor did they summarize the agreements clearly at the end of the call.
Sara Habchi Kennedy 13:06 · 14:05 24/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional consultation with Kennedy, confirming all relevant personal and immigration details. They clearly explained the current eligibility, programs, and next steps, including the paid consultation and payment process, ensuring Kennedy understood the options and requirements.

What went wrong

There were no significant issues in this call. The caller avoided making any illegal promises and provided clear, realistic information. The call was well-structured and comprehensive, with no objections mishandled or missed opportunities for clarification.

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 06:01 (19 min ago) running
Riya Kathuria 04:31 (109 min ago) offline
Sara Habchi 06:20 (0 min ago) running
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 67 of 32 live conversations

Sara Habchi Timothy 08:30 · 1:14 6/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, establishing a polite and professional tone. She also outlined the purpose of the call and confirmed the scheduled time, which shows good preparation and respect for the lead's availability.

What went wrong

The call ended abruptly before any substantive discussion could take place. Important qualifying questions such as citizenship, immigration status, and eligibility were not asked. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and the call ended with a technical issue, 'sorry, I can't hear you,' without resolution.
Sara Habchi — 08:32 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reconnect and confirmed audio was working, showing attentiveness to call quality.

What went wrong

The call was too short and disconnected early, with no substantive conversation or sales activity taking place.
Reine Francis — 09:37 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to push the call further. The message clearly identified the issue with the voicemail box not being initialized.

What went wrong

No message was left, so there was no opportunity to engage or leave contact information for a callback.
Reine Francis Megan 09:40 · 0:29 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. The message included a call to action, asking for a preferred time to discuss further via call or WhatsApp.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The voicemail was brief and did not provide detailed information about services or next steps, which could limit lead motivation to call back.
Reine Francis — 09:43 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to push the call further. The message was clear and professional.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage with a lead or gather information, so no errors were made.
Reine Francis Rizo 09:45 · 0:24 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

There was no opportunity to engage the lead in conversation or gather information, but the message was concise and appropriate for a voicemail.
Reine Francis Anouj 09:48 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, mentioning the lead's name and inviting them to respond by message or WhatsApp.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message was brief but did not include a specific next step or consultation offer.
Reine Francis — 09:49 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The call reached voicemail as indicated by the recorded message. No message was left, so there was no opportunity to engage the lead.

What went wrong

No errors occurred since no human answered; however, leaving a brief message could improve lead engagement.
Reine Francis — 09:50 · 0:35 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

There was no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage the lead or address their specific situation.
Reine Francis — 09:51 · 9:34 14/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced himself and the company, and explained the next steps well, including the consultation details and fees. He presented relevant immigration programs and emphasized the licensed consultant's involvement, which builds credibility. The caller also confirmed contact preferences and set expectations for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask the lead's name or gather key personal details like age, education, or work experience, which are important for assessing eligibility. No specific appointment was locked, and the call ended without summarizing agreements. Handling of common objections was missing, which could improve engagement and conversion.
Sara Habchi Alain Creed 09:56 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, stating their name, company, and reason for calling. They addressed the lead by name and invited a callback, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. No message content beyond the introduction and callback request was provided, so no selling or next steps were offered.
Sara Habchi Amir 09:58 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead during this call.
Reine Francis — 10:05 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, referencing previous contact attempts, and inviting the lead to respond at their convenience.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no selling or qualification could occur. The message was appropriate and professional; nothing went wrong.
Reine Francis — 10:13 · 1:15 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's website submission. The message invites the lead to respond with a preferred time, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail with no live person, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. No message was left after the tone, so the lead might not have enough information to call back promptly.
Reine Francis — 10:21 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail indicating the reason for the call and referencing the lead's application on the official website.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was taken.
Reine Francis Shabbat 10:21 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, stating their name and company, and inviting the lead to respond by message or WhatsApp 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 but did not include a direct offer for a consultation or mention of the RCIC license, which could improve future messages.
Reine Francis — 10:22 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller identified themselves and the company clearly in the voicemail, mentioning the lead's submission on the website. This leaves a clear context for the lead to call back.

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 beyond the brief introduction, which limits the chance of a callback.
Reine Francis — 10:23 · 0:41 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and requesting relevant information and a preferred callback time.

What went wrong

No issues here; the message was concise and professional. No message was left beyond the voicemail greeting and brief introduction.
Reine Francis — 10:24 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human interaction. The system message was clear and professional.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or leave contact information.
Reine Francis — 10:26 · 21:59 15/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, explaining the consultation process and the immigration pathways available. They handled objections well, especially concerns about communication after payment, and reassured the lead by offering multiple contact points. The caller also made sure to explain that no guarantees were made and that the consultation fee is deductible.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or confirm important personal details such as age, education, or work experience, which are critical for assessing eligibility. They also did not lock in a specific date or time for the consultation or summarize the agreements at the end, missing opportunities to secure commitment and clarity.
Sara Habchi — 10:38 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to engage the lead by greeting and asking if they could hear them, showing an effort to establish communication.

What went wrong

The call was very short and did not progress beyond initial greetings and checking audio. There was no introduction, no information gathering, and no sales effort made.
Sara Habchi — 10:39 · 1:28 5/26

What was good

The caller was polite and responsive, offering to transfer the case to a manager who could call at a more convenient time, showing flexibility and respect for the lead's schedule.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any qualifying information or attempt to engage the lead beyond scheduling a callback. There was no attempt to ask the lead's name or discuss their immigration goals, missing an opportunity to build rapport and assess needs.
Sara Habchi Vedant 10:42 · 0:27 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and mentioned the lead's name and 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 greeting.
Sara Habchi — 10:46 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead but no response was received.

What went wrong

There was no interaction or speech from the lead to engage with, so no sales process could occur.
Sara Habchi Samuel 10:46 · 0:58 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early in the call, establishing a connection. She also identified the purpose of the call related to the PR application, which is relevant to the lead's inquiry.

What went wrong

The call ended abruptly without gathering any detailed information such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR interest. No next steps or consultations were offered, and the caller did not confirm contact details or lock in a follow-up appointment. The call was cut short before meaningful engagement could occur.
Sara Habchi — 10:48 · 0:59 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully scheduled a follow-up call and confirmed contact details, locking in a specific date and time. They also mentioned reaching out via WhatsApp, which shows multi-channel communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any client information or discuss immigration goals. The call lacked any assessment or explanation of services, missing key sales opportunities.
Sara Habchi — 11:01 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not contain any conversation or sales attempt.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage with the lead or attempt to introduce themselves or the company, resulting in no meaningful interaction.
Reine Francis — 11:09 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail. The system message was clear and no attempt was made to push the call further.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so no opportunity to engage the lead was taken.
Reine Francis — 11:10 · 0:15 0/0

What was good

The caller reached voicemail quickly and did not waste time on a dead line.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide a callback number.
Reine Francis — 11:10 · 0:32 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

There was no opportunity to engage the lead live or gather any information, but the message was concise and professional. No issues noted given the voicemail context.
Sara Habchi Nikita 11:11 · 12:13 20/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Nikita, confirming key personal and immigration details and clearly explaining the programs and next steps. They carefully assessed eligibility and presented multiple pathways, showing good knowledge and client focus.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end. These omissions could reduce the chance of securing the booking and clarity for the client.
Reine Francis Ralph 11:12 · 9:12 21/26

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing rapport. He thoroughly explained the consultation process, fees, and possible immigration pathways, showing transparency and professionalism. The caller handled objections well, especially regarding the lead's prior consultation and language concerns, maintaining honesty throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's education and work experience, which are important for assessing eligibility. No specific date or time for the consultation was locked in, and the call ended without summarizing the agreements made. These omissions could reduce the chance of securing the next step effectively.
Reine Francis — 11:33 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message with contact instructions, saying, "Please, when you have time, get back to me either by message or WhatsApp."

What went wrong

No live person answered, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not include the caller's full name or company name clearly, which could improve professionalism.
Reine Francis — 11:34 · 6:00 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and effectively assessed the lead's immigration status and options, explaining the francophone work permit and consultation process well. They handled the lead's hesitation professionally by offering to send an email and waiting for the lead's update.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask the lead's name or confirm age and education details, which are important for eligibility assessment. They also missed summarizing the agreements at the end and did not lock a specific date or time for the consultation, which could improve closing the next step.
Reine Francis — 11:58 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond by message or WhatsApp with their preferred time.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No message content was left beyond the callback request, so no further selling or qualification was possible.
Reine Francis — 12:00 · 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 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 but did not include a direct offer for a paid consultation or mention the RCIC license.
Reine Francis — 12:10 · 0:32 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.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message was brief but did not include a direct offer for a consultation or next step.
Reine Francis Chapal 12:11 · 0:40 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and referenced the lead's prior application, establishing context quickly. They maintained a polite and professional tone throughout the brief conversation.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore any details about the lead's situation or goals, missing an opportunity to engage and offer services. No next steps or consultations were proposed, and the call ended abruptly without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements.
Reine Francis Ritchie 12:12 · 8:57 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirmed the lead's immigration status, and assessed eligibility with approximate points. They explained the next steps and offered a paid consultation, handling the 'I'll think about it' objection professionally. The call was informative and respectful of the lead's time.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's age, education, or language proficiency, which are important for a full assessment. They also did not mention the RCIC license or past successful cases, which could build trust. No specific date or time was locked for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure the next step firmly.
Reine Francis Prashant 12:38 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail, stating their name and company and referencing the lead's application. They requested specific information and a preferred time for a callback, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or handle objections. No next steps were locked or contact details confirmed live, which is expected in this context.
Reine Francis — 12:39 · 1:10 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company twice, leaving a polite and informative voicemail. They provided the lead with instructions to respond by message or WhatsApp, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no further selling or qualification was attempted. Leaving two similar voicemails in the same call might be redundant and could be streamlined for efficiency.
Reine Francis — 12:41 · 0:17 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to leave a brief introduction or callback request.
Reine Francis — 12:41 · 4:13 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, and explained the next steps and available programs well, including mentioning the RCIC license and consultation details. They also made no illegal promises and offered a paid consultation as the next step.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking for the client's name, citizenship, immigration goals, age, education, language skills, and work experience, which are important for assessing eligibility. They also did not handle common objections, confirm contact details, lock a consultation date, or summarize agreements at the end.
Reine Francis — 12:46 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as reaching a voicemail service.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead.
Reine Francis — 12:46 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or leave a callback number.
Reine Francis Miguel 12:49 · 0:41 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 for a call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or assess the lead's needs. No further selling or qualification could be done on this call.
Sara Habchi Jaskaran 12:51 · 11:11 23/25

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming all relevant details and clearly explaining the client's options and next steps. The caller effectively presented the programs and addressed the client's questions about work permits and language requirements, showing good knowledge and clarity.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, only offered to schedule after payment, which could risk losing the lead's commitment. Otherwise, the call was well handled with no illegal promises or missed opportunities.
Sara Habchi Manav 13:31 · 17:50 21/26

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 Manav's status, education, work, and language skills, and explained multiple immigration pathways with clarity. The caller also handled objections well and offered a next step consultation with the RCIC licensed director.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details such as WhatsApp or email. Additionally, there was no summary of agreements at the end of the call, which could help reinforce next steps and improve conversion.
Riya Kathuria — 16:26 · 0:40 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and left a brief message identifying themselves and the company name.

What went wrong

No message was left after the greeting, so the lead was not given any reason to call back or information about next steps.
Riya Kathuria — 16:31 · 1:01 4/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and confirmed the client's current immigration status by asking about the work permit validity.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask the client's name or any other qualifying questions such as citizenship, goals, or education. The call ended abruptly without offering next steps or confirming contact details, missing key opportunities to engage the lead further.
Riya Kathuria — 16:33 · 8:37 21/26

What was good

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

What went wrong

The caller did not explicitly ask for the lead's name or citizenship, which are important for a complete profile. They also missed locking in a specific consultation date and time, opting instead to call back later, which could risk losing the lead's commitment.
Riya Kathuria — 17:02 · 2:35 14/23

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, and gathered important information such as the client's work permit validity, age, education, English test score, and work experience. They also presented the appropriate immigration program based on the client's profile and began assessing eligibility.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or confirm country of residence, and did not explain the steps and timelines of the process. They failed to highlight the RCIC licence or past successful cases, and did not offer a next step such as a paid consultation or lock in a specific appointment time. Contact details were not confirmed, and the call ended abruptly without summarizing agreements.
Riya Kathuria Anmol 17:18 · 3:43 8/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and successfully secured a paid consultation appointment for Thursday at 4 pm. The conversation was focused and moved efficiently towards booking the next step, with clear communication about the invoice and agreement.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any client information such as immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to assess the lead's needs. There was no confirmation of contact details or a summary of agreements at the end, which could help ensure clarity and reduce follow-up issues.
Riya Kathuria — 17:22 · 7:41 8/24

What was good

The caller successfully scheduled a consultation, locking in a specific date and time and confirming contact details clearly. They also referenced the RCIC CEO and company name, which helps build trust. The caller avoided making any illegal promises and ensured the lead signed the agreement and paid the invoice.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, nor did they ask for the lead's name or gather any immigration-related information. There was no discussion of the client's goals, status, or eligibility, and no summary of agreements at the end. This limits the opportunity to engage the lead fully and assess their needs.
Riya Kathuria — 17:30 · 0:23 0/0

What was good

The call was very brief and did not develop into a conversation, so no positive selling actions were possible.

What went wrong

The call was almost entirely silence and confusion, with no introduction or engagement. The caller did not manage to establish contact or gather any information from the lead.
Riya Kathuria — 18:17 · 0:41 5/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and successfully arranged a follow-up call time, locking in 'before 2 o'clock' for a team member to call back.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any client information or discuss the client's needs during this call. There was no attempt to ask the client's name or confirm contact details, and no next steps or consultation offers were made beyond scheduling a callback.
Riya Kathuria — 18:52 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and left a polite message asking for a convenient callback time. This is a professional approach to leaving a voicemail.

What went wrong

There is nothing wrong in this voicemail; however, no opportunity to engage the lead further was possible since it was not a live conversation.
Riya Kathuria Akshay 18:56 · 0:28 6/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Ria from Evernorth Immigration.' She also confirmed the lead's name, Akshay, and successfully scheduled a callback time, locking in '8 o'clock.'

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not explore any client details such as immigration goals or status. There was no offer of a consultation or explanation of next steps, and no confirmation of contact details. The opportunity to engage the lead more fully was missed.
Riya Kathuria — 18:57 · 0:51 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified the company twice, saying "Hi, this is Ria from Evernorth Immigration." The message was polite and professional, indicating the reason for the call was regarding the assessment form filled online.

What went wrong

This call went to voicemail and no message was left after the greeting. The caller did not leave any information or invitation for a callback, missing an opportunity to engage the lead.
Riya Kathuria Zia 18:58 · 2:30 12/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead in a real conversation and gathered key information such as age and work permit validity. They also explained how they match profiles to NOC codes and employer connections, showing some product knowledge.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about citizenship or immigration goals, nor did they explain next steps or timelines. They failed to confirm contact details or offer a paid consultation, and the lead expressed discomfort sharing detailed education info over the phone, which was not addressed further.
Riya Kathuria — 19:01 · 0:39 0/0

What was good

The caller left a voicemail as the lead was unavailable, which is appropriate for this situation.

What went wrong

No message was left after the greeting, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide contact information.
Riya Kathuria Ria 19:16 · 7:18 24/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and thoroughly gathered the lead's profile details, including age, education, language proficiency, and work experience. She explained the services and pathways well, mentioning the RCIC license and consultation process, and handled objections professionally without pressure.

What went wrong

The caller did not secure a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to lock in the next step despite the lead's initial openness. Otherwise, the call was well managed with clear explanations and respectful handling of the lead's decision not to proceed immediately.
Riya Kathuria — 19:39 · 4:07 15/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and gathered detailed information about the lead's study permit, education, age, language proficiency, and work experience. She also explained the process and programs relevant to the lead's profile, showing good engagement and understanding.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or citizenship, nor confirm contact details or lock in a next appointment time. There was no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases to build trust, and no offer of a paid consultation was made. The call ended with a promise to call back after checking with a manager, which left the lead hanging without a clear next step.
Riya Kathuria — 19:51 · 0:47 6/24

What was good

The caller provided clear and accurate information about the timing and process for applying for a work permit after studies, stating "you have to apply next year, not right now." This helps set realistic 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 other qualifying information. No next steps or consultations were offered, and no contact details were confirmed, missing opportunities to engage the lead further.
Riya Kathuria — 20:07 · 8:10 21/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, gathered detailed client information including age, education, and immigration status, and thoroughly explained the PR pathways and consultation process. They also emphasized the RCIC license and offered a paid consultation with follow-up, showing professionalism and clarity.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' nor did they lock in a specific consultation date or summarize agreements at the end. The call ended abruptly without confirming next steps clearly, which could reduce conversion chances.
Riya Kathuria — 20:16 · 1:11 6/26

What was good

The caller offered a consultation and successfully locked a follow-up date, saying "After like Thursday... end of the week I will call you then." They avoided making any illegal promises about guaranteed outcomes.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information such as immigration status, goals, or background. The call lacked any explanation of steps, programs, or confirmation of contact details, making it a very brief and incomplete sales interaction.
Riya Kathuria — 20:40 · 9:53 23/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough needs assessment, asking detailed questions about the client's status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the PR pathways and consultation process, including the licensed consultant's involvement, and handled objections well by allowing the client time to think.

What went wrong

The caller did not secure a specific consultation date and time, which is a missed opportunity to lock in the lead. Also, the 'I'll do it myself' objection was not addressed, which could have helped further engage the client.
data check · 7 calls not matched to a lead · 2 leads without a phone number · 55 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included