EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Wednesday, 16 September 2026

built 17 Sep 2026, 06:18 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
96
80 out / 16 in
Leads
67
new today
Reached
28
75 answered − 28 vm, 19 short
Qualified
3
good status
Booked
1
moved to 1.4
Messages
295
SMS
Follow-up
45
11 reached, 19 vm, 11 short, 4 missed
Lead→Booked
1.5%
daily rate

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

070911131517192123
Sara
Ma Isabel Gumanid
10:050:09
outgoing too short
Fawaz Animashaun
10:070:35
outgoing voicemail
Fawaz Animashaun
10:081:30
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
2894661244
10:170:00
incoming no answer
Mihir Joshi
10:390:13
outgoing voicemail
Rupinderjeet Singh
10:520:06
outgoing too short
Sukhwinder Singh
11:000:06
outgoing too short
Moin Patel
11:070:37
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
Antony Manuval
11:160:05
outgoing too short
youssef Abou Chebel
11:170:06
outgoing too short
Saugat Chand
11:303:38
outgoing answered
checklist12/26
Saugat Chand
11:341:34
outgoing answered
checklist5/26
Saugat Chand
11:361:11
outgoing no speech
Moin Patel
13:060:49
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Moin Patel
13:120:07
outgoing too short
Amrit Chalise
16:020:00
incoming no answer
Khushal Singh
17:160:00
incoming no answer
Khushal Singh
17:160:00
incoming no answer
Khushal Singh
17:170:00
incoming no answer
Khushal Singh
17:180:00
incoming no answer
Khushal Singh
17:200:00
incoming no answer
Reine
Sajib Chowdhury
09:470:53
outgoing answered
checklist7/24
Ajas Govada
09:500:18
outgoing voicemail
Khushal Singh
09:510:49
outgoing voicemail
Karan Nagpal
09:521:13
outgoing answered
checklist8/24
Harsh Meen
09:540:51
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Grish Tahilyani
09:570:35
outgoing voicemail
checklist3/6
Kartikey Mahendru
09:580:58
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Sukhdeep Singh
10:030:45
outgoing voicemail
Bipin Acharya
10:040:32
outgoing voicemail
Ravi Maharjan
10:050:26
outgoing voicemail
+19297851025
10:060:27
outgoing voicemail
Shrijal Kc
10:070:42
outgoing voicemail
2892990235
10:220:00
incoming no answer
Joselito Usi
11:010:24
outgoing voicemail
Taha Sajid
11:020:25
outgoing voicemail
Sharanjit
11:030:22
outgoing voicemail
Rajesh Tiwarie
11:040:00
outgoing no answer
Zaid Khadki
11:063:05
outgoing voicemail
Avneet Kaur
11:101:12
outgoing voicemail
Shabbir
11:120:31
outgoing voicemail
Ron Casipe
11:130:31
outgoing voicemail
Bhaviya Chopra
11:1312:17
outgoing answered
checklist19/26
Lithin
11:330:24
outgoing voicemail
Reynante Bendaña
11:341:11
outgoing answered
checklist4/25
Jay Lord Generalao
11:360:36
outgoing voicemail
Abhijith Suresh
11:370:40
outgoing voicemail
Prashant Kumar
11:390:31
outgoing voicemail
Harrowing Blizzard Twenty-six
11:391:14
outgoing voicemail
Miguel
11:410:34
outgoing voicemail
Miguel
11:4314:07
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
Dan Almenar
12:040:24
outgoing voicemail
Unknown Caller
12:041:04
outgoing voicemail
Sanket Mehta
12:060:20
outgoing voicemail
Sajib Chowdhury
12:070:00
outgoing no answer
Khushal Singh
17:170:00
incoming no answer
Riya
Subodh Joshi
16:300:03
outgoing too short
Wasim Hasan
16:431:47
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Sajid
16:460:00
outgoing no answer
Sajid Mahmud
16:470:00
outgoing no answer
Samuel
16:480:06
outgoing too short
2894795739
16:490:00
incoming no answer
Sijan Chacko
16:541:01
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Deven
16:570:03
outgoing too short
2894795739
17:000:00
incoming no answer
Kumar Aman
17:020:00
outgoing no answer
Kumar Aman
17:150:00
outgoing no answer
Deven
17:1610:39
outgoing answered
checklist20/26
Nevin Varghese Sunil
17:330:00
outgoing no answer
Nevin Varghese Sunil
17:330:00
outgoing no answer
Wasim Hasan
17:386:00
incoming answered
Wasim Hasan
17:440:11
outgoing no speech
Wasim Hasan
17:4414:50
incoming answered
Ajaypreet Singh
18:060:26
outgoing wrong number
checklist3/26
Karthik Prasad
18:100:06
outgoing too short
2894795739
18:119:26
incoming answered
Jasmine Rauli
18:2612:45
outgoing answered
checklist20/26
Aswin P S
18:390:04
outgoing too short
Ben Nosari
19:264:30
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Karan Nagpal
19:359:38
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Ryan
19:560:06
outgoing too short
Ben Nosari
19:561:25
incoming answered
Ben Nosari
20:243:12
outgoing answered
checklist18/26
Basit Ilyas
20:280:06
outgoing too short
Vansh Vansh
20:360:04
outgoing too short
Manoj Hariharan
20:370:04
outgoing too short
kavya khatri
20:380:08
outgoing too short
Naitik Patel
20:421:11
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Maitreya Bapat
20:440:04
outgoing too short
Patricio Negrete Ricci
20:450:03
outgoing too short
Nelson Rajbhandari
20:460:04
outgoing too short
Haziq Tareeq saleem
20:480:00
outgoing no answer
Khac Thanh Trung Dinh
20:500:45
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
Zia
20:5320:17
outgoing answered
checklist23/26
+14372204899
21:192:42
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
+4372204899
21:270:00
incoming no answer
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 67 total

Landing-PGWP
16
Meta-Form-PGWP
13
Secon Job Overseas
10
Second Job Tunisia
8
Second-Job
6
Second Job Morocco
5
Web-Organic
5
Reception-Calls
3
SMM-Organic
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 27 of 67 leads called

Fastest
0 min
Riya Kathuria 17:00–21:00
called outside shift · 143 min on the clock
Slowest
360 min
Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00
528 min on the clock
median 67 min · 40 leads never called · 1 unassigned, counted on 08:00–21:00

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 3 21 5 23.8% 0 0 0.0%
Reine Francis 10 35 7 20.0% 3 0 0.0%
Riya Kathuria 15 40 16 40.0% 0 1 6.7%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
67
Contacted
79
Qualified
3
Consultations
1

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

16:00–18:00 best connect
30/63
47.6%
12:00–14:00
31/71
43.7%
18:00–20:00
35/83
42.2%
20:00–21:00
21/54
38.9%
10:00–12:00
59/254
23.2%
08:00–10:00 worst
26/129
20.2%
average 30.8% over 659 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
6
Qualified
3
In progress (contacted)
22
New / no activity
36

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 21 8:08 7:14:20 10:05 17:20 69
Reine Francis 35 31:30 7:30:07 09:47 17:17 178
Riya Kathuria 40 1:40:34 4:57:04 16:30 21:27 35
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 40 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
Telma Mendez 00:24 — Reine Francis no call —
Akrem Boukrain 00:45 — — no call —
Fatma Hamrouni 02:08 — Constantine no call —
fatma hamrouni 02:18 — — no call —
Sabrina BAKHOUCHE 03:50 — — no call —
Yasmine chiraz Ait-oumeziane 05:12 — — no call —
Ikram Mechlaoui 05:52 — — no call —
Aïssaoui Mohamed Amine 06:14 — Constantine no call —
Ahmed Salim Boudebouda 06:39 — Constantine no call —
mohamed benketira 07:31 — Constantine no call —
Moula Narimen 07:40 — — no call —
Farid CHALAL 08:00 — — no call —
Sakshi Malhotra 08:19 — — no call —
Hamza Lagrari 10:24 — — no call —
Candy AHO 10:30 — — no call —
Nada Mahjoubi 11:29 — — no call —
Nadim Jebali 11:40 — Constantine no call —
Imanisu 11:58 — — no call —
Aya El rhadof 12:00 — — no call —
Bassam Yossef 12:11 — Reine Francis no call —
Dounia Messaoudi 12:13 — — no call —
Robi Molina 13:26 — — no call —
Imane Laamoumi 14:48 — — no call —
Krishan Kumar 14:48 — — no call —
Lilia Ammari 15:34 — — no call —
Michelle Lozano Pena 16:09 — — no call —
Adrae Abdallaoui 17:46 — Constantine no call —
Mohamed Amine Haggui 17:48 — Constantine no call —
Al 18:54 — — no call —
NIBIN THAMBI 20:25 — — no call —
Amandeep Kaur 21:50 — — no call —
Abderrahmane Mahdjoub 22:02 — Constantine no call —
Ashok Bhandari 22:29 — — no call —
Samarjeet Singh 22:58 — Constantine no call —
Sanal John 23:10 — — no call —
Abhijith Jose 23:23 — — no call —
Mohaned Mohamed 23:23 — — no call —
Harnoor Singh 23:47 — — no call —
othmen souid 23:48 — Constantine no call —
Heathcliffein 23:59 — — no call —
Sajid Mahmud 07:59 16:47 (0:00) Sara Habchi 360 min —
Antony Manuval 07:40 11:16 (0:05) Sara Habchi 196 min —
youssef Abou Chebel 08:15 11:17 (0:06) Sara Habchi 183 min —
Ravi Maharjan 00:39 10:05 (0:26) Reine Francis 126 min voicemail
Bipin Acharya 00:56 10:04 (0:32) Reine Francis 125 min voicemail
Sukhdeep Singh 01:18 10:03 (0:45) Reine Francis 124 min voicemail
Kartikey Mahendru 01:27 09:58 (0:58) Reine Francis 119 min 6/26
Grish Tahilyani 01:27 09:57 (0:35) Reine Francis 118 min 3/6
Harsh Meen 01:40 09:54 (0:51) Reine Francis 115 min 7/26
Khushal Singh 08:02 09:51 (0:49) Reine Francis 108 min voicemail
Ajas Govada 08:19 09:50 (0:18) Reine Francis 91 min voicemail
Jasmine Rauli 09:13 18:26 (12:45) Riya Kathuria 86 min 20/26
Karthik Prasad 15:20 18:10 (0:06) Riya Kathuria 70 min —
Ajaypreet Singh 15:16 18:06 (0:26) Riya Kathuria 67 min 3/26
Nevin Varghese Sunil 14:40 17:33 (0:00) Riya Kathuria 33 min —
Basit Ilyas 20:00 20:28 (0:06) Riya Kathuria 29 min —
Ryan 19:37 19:56 (0:06) Riya Kathuria 19 min —
Aswin P S 18:24 18:39 (0:04) Riya Kathuria 16 min —
Ben Nosari 19:12 19:26 (4:30) Riya Kathuria 14 min 9/26
Unknown Caller 11:58 12:04 (1:04) — 7 min voicemail
Kumar Aman 14:39 17:02 (0:00) Riya Kathuria 2 min —
Karan Nagpal 07:29 09:52 (1:13) Riya Kathuria off-shift 8/24
Sajid 09:14 16:46 (0:00) Riya Kathuria off-shift —
Samuel 11:58 16:48 (0:06) Riya Kathuria off-shift —
Wasim Hasan 12:47 16:43 (1:47) Riya Kathuria off-shift 6/26
Sijan Chacko 13:06 16:54 (1:01) Riya Kathuria off-shift 3/26
Deven 13:07 16:57 (0:03) Riya Kathuria off-shift —

Booked consultations 1 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Rajan Yadav Meta-Form-PGWP Riya Kathuria 16 Sep 20:22 21:21

SMS 270 sent · 25 received · 75 contacts

Reply rate
18.9%
14 of 74 conversations
Median reply
4 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 30 1 11 9 1 11.1%
Reine Francis 227 19 65 64 12 18.8%
Riya Kathuria 13 5 6 1 1 100.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 9 conversations where the client wrote last

Karan Nagpal 07:36 · Reine Francis 983 min
you can call me around 8
Ajas Govada 12:06 · Reine Francis 714 min
Hello ma'am.. Wo contact you later.. Iam just at work, sorry
Sanket Mehta 12:06 · Reine Francis 713 min
Sorry, I can't talk right now.
Wasim Hasan 12:51 · Reine Francis 669 min
Hi Reine. I need an appointment to discuss about PR application. Please give me a call. Thanks
Karthik Prasad 15:21 · Reine Francis 518 min
5 pm tommorow
Deven 17:13 · Riya Kathuria 406 min
You can call me now
Giovanni Geraldizo 18:08 · Reine Francis 352 min
i will be right back at you as soon as my schedule opens up
Ben Nosari 19:13 · Reine Francis 286 min
Hi would you be available for 10 AM?
Samuel 19:21 · Riya Kathuria 278 min
Ohk

WhatsApp calls 33 calls · 19 out / 14 in · 58:12 talk

3 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Riya, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 13 10 3 5 41:50 5/5
Reine Francis 16 6 10 7 14:20 7/7
Riya Kathuria 4 3 1 3 2:02 1/3
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
2 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 15 conversations

Reine Francis +12368696394 07:10 · 7:52 16/26

What was good

The caller provided a detailed explanation of the consultation process and various immigration options, including the trade sector and language improvement. They clearly offered a paid consultation and tried to book a specific date, showing good control of the sales process.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, nor did they ask for the client's name. They also missed confirming contact details and summarizing agreements at the end, which are important for closing the call properly.
Reine Francis +12368696394 07:20 · 0:15 0/0

What was good

The call was too short to evaluate any sales activities or compliance. No conversation took place to assess the lead's needs or provide information.

What went wrong

The call ended prematurely without any introduction, qualification, or offering of services. No attempt was made to engage the lead or confirm details.
Sara Habchi +14374607101 08:05 · 15:14 25/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough needs assessment, asking about age, education, work experience, and immigration status, which helped tailor the advice. They clearly explained the eligibility criteria and next steps, including the consultation process and pricing, and handled objections well by addressing concerns about doing it independently or needing time to think. The caller also confirmed contact details and offered flexible booking options, showing good client engagement.

What went wrong

The call lacked a clear summary of the agreements or next steps at the end, which could leave the lead uncertain about what was decided or expected. Including a concise recap would improve clarity and client confidence in the process.
Sara Habchi Raja 09:13 · 9:31 21/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough needs assessment, confirming Raja's status, goals, and eligibility. She clearly explained the Francophone Mobility Program and next steps, including the consultation process and fees, ensuring Raja understood the pathway.

What went wrong

The caller did not mention the RCIC license or past successful cases, which could build trust. Also, she missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Finally, no specific consultation date or time was locked during the call.
Sara Habchi Umbar 10:18 · 16:57 11/26

What was good

The caller successfully engaged the lead in a conversation and confirmed the lead's name, 'Umbar.' They discussed the lead's French language proficiency and CRS points, showing some assessment of eligibility. The caller also secured a specific follow-up date and confirmed WhatsApp contact details, which helps maintain the relationship.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, which is a missed opportunity to build trust. Important information such as the lead's citizenship, immigration status, goals, and education was not gathered, limiting the ability to tailor advice. The caller also failed to present any program options or explain next steps clearly, and did not summarize the call agreements at the end.
Reine Francis +12269758714 11:31 · 0:17 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to initiate contact by checking if the lead could hear them, showing an effort to connect.

What went wrong

The call was extremely short with no actual conversation or information exchanged, making it impossible to assess or progress the lead.
Reine Francis Sergip 12:07 · 0:23 2/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by checking if they could hear each other, establishing basic communication.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions or offer any information about services. The call ended without progressing the conversation or setting any next steps.
Reine Francis +919884940088 13:32 · 2:33 17/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the next steps and consultation details, including fees and program options, providing a thorough overview of the services. They also highlighted the involvement of an RCIC licensed consultant and addressed the client's current immigration status well.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the client's name or confirm contact details. They also missed opportunities to handle common objections and to lock in a specific consultation date and time.
Reine Francis Evernorth 13:42 · 2:53 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and engaged the lead by confirming their current immigration status and goals. They explained the next steps thoroughly, including the consultation process, and presented relevant programs like the trade sector and francophone streams. The caller also handled objections well and avoided making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking some key personal details such as age, education, English/French proficiency, and work experience, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. They also did not lock in a specific consultation date or confirm contact details, which could affect follow-up effectiveness.

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 13:59 (979 min ago) offline
Riya Kathuria 21:13 (544 min ago) offline
Sara Habchi 05:59 (19 min ago) running
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 52 of 28 live conversations

Reine Francis Sajid 09:47 · 0:53 7/24

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's identity by saying, "Good morning, Sajid." They handled the lead's request politely by agreeing to call later and arranged to follow up via WhatsApp, showing respect for the lead's availability.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing an opportunity to qualify the lead. No specific appointment was locked, and no summary of next steps was provided, which could reduce conversion chances.
Reine Francis — 09:50 · 0:18 0/0

What was good

The call was handled appropriately given it went to an uninitialized voicemail. The caller did not leave a message, avoiding unnecessary voicemail clutter.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, which could have been an opportunity to briefly introduce the company and invite a callback.
Reine Francis Khushal 09:51 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, stating the reason for the call and requesting a callback with preferred times.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but sufficient for a callback.
Reine Francis Ken 09:52 · 1:13 8/24

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early in the call, saying 'This is Rand from Evernorth' and addressing 'Ken'. He successfully arranged a follow-up call with a colleague and locked in a specific time, 'in the evening at 8 or 9'.

What went wrong

The caller missed many key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, and goals, and did not present any program or explain next steps in detail. Contact details were not confirmed, nor was there a summary of the call's agreements. The call was very brief and mostly logistical without substantive engagement.
Reine Francis Harish 09:54 · 0:51 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name, saying 'This is Ren, I'm the team leader at Evernorth' and addressing Harish by name. They handled the lead's unavailability professionally by offering to send information via WhatsApp and email and asked for a preferred callback time.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any immigration details or assess the lead's situation. No eligibility was assessed, no programs were presented, and no next steps were firmly scheduled. The caller missed the opportunity to summarize or confirm agreements before ending the call.
Reine Francis Chris 09:57 · 0:35 3/6

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the reason for the call. They offered a next step by inviting the lead to schedule a call via message or WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for a follow-up call and did not summarize any agreements at the end, which could improve the chance of securing a confirmed appointment.
Reine Francis — 09:58 · 0:58 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, saying "This is Ren, I'm the team leader at Evernorth." They also arranged a follow-up contact via WhatsApp, showing initiative to continue the conversation.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying questions such as immigration status or goals. They also failed to lock in a specific callback time, only suggesting a vague timeframe. There was no summary of agreements or explanation of next steps beyond sending a message.
Reine Francis Tasi 10:03 · 0:45 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and referencing the lead's application. The message invites the lead to respond at their convenience, which is appropriate for this situation.

What went wrong

No issues with the voicemail. It was concise and professional, and a message was left for the lead to call back or message on WhatsApp.
Reine Francis — 10:04 · 0:32 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. The message could have included a callback number for easier response.
Reine Francis — 10:05 · 0:26 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

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead was taken. The message could have included a bit more detail to encourage a callback.
Reine Francis — 10:06 · 0:27 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 by message or WhatsApp.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No message was left beyond the standard voicemail script and a brief introduction, so the call did not advance the sales process.
Reine Francis — 10:07 · 0:42 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, stating, "Hi, this is Ren, team leader at Evernorth."

What went wrong

This call went to voicemail, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No message was left beyond the brief introduction, missing a chance to encourage a callback.
Sara Habchi — 10:07 · 0:35 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, saying, "This is Sarah from Evernorth."

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage the lead or gather information. No message was left beyond the introduction, so it was not very effective.
Sara Habchi — 10:08 · 1:30 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, saying, "my name is Sarah and I'm a case manager with Evernorth." She successfully locked a specific date and time for a follow-up call, confirming "Call scheduled for tomorrow at 1:30 p.m."

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the client's name or any details about their immigration status, goals, or background. There was no assessment of eligibility, no presentation of programs, and no offer of a paid consultation. The call ended quickly after scheduling, missing many opportunities to engage and qualify the lead.
Sara Habchi — 10:39 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or request a callback.
Reine Francis — 11:01 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as reaching a voicemail with no initialized mailbox.

What went wrong

No message was left, so there was no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.
Reine Francis — 11:02 · 0:25 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 if interested.

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 callback number or next steps explicitly.
Reine Francis — 11:03 · 0:22 0/0

What was good

The caller left a polite and clear voicemail message encouraging the lead to respond if interested.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company in the voicemail, which could improve clarity for the lead.
Reine Francis Saad 11:06 · 3:05 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying himself and the company, and referenced the lead's recent application. The message was concise and encouraged the lead to respond when available.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or a more specific call to action to increase response chances.
Sara Habchi Patel 11:07 · 0:37 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, "My name is Sarah and I am a case manager with Evernore." She also confirmed the lead's name and successfully scheduled a specific callback time at 1 p.m., locking in the next step effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, missing a key opportunity to assess eligibility or present relevant programs. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements, and no handling of potential objections, which could improve engagement in future calls.
Reine Francis Azneta 11:10 · 1:12 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the reason for the call, mentioning the lead's name 'Azneta' and referencing the previous application. This is helpful for encouraging a callback.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The voicemail was appropriate but no further action was possible on this call.
Reine Francis Shabbat 11:12 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and their role. This message invites the lead to respond if interested, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No issues here since this was a voicemail. The message was concise and professional, so nothing went wrong.
Reine Francis — 11:13 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating the reason for the call and referencing the lead's prior application. This is a professional approach to leaving a callback message.

What went wrong

This call was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or qualification could take place. The caller did not leave a specific callback number or time to reach them, which could improve the chance of a return call.
Reine Francis — 11:13 · 12:17 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's PGWP status and discussing relevant immigration programs. They explained the consultation process thoroughly and handled objections well, providing clear information about fees and next steps.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's age or education, nor did they assess language proficiency. They also failed to lock in a specific appointment date and did not summarize the agreements at the end of the call. These omissions could affect the call's effectiveness.
Sara Habchi — 11:30 · 3:38 12/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly as Sarah from Evernorth and confirmed key client details such as immigration status, age, education, and work experience. The conversation was polite and the caller ensured the client could hear her well.

What went wrong

The caller did not assess eligibility or present any immigration programs, nor did she explain next steps or timelines. There was no mention of the RCIC licence or handling of objections, and no attempt to lock a consultation or confirm contact details. The call ended abruptly without summarizing agreements or offering a next step.
Reine Francis — 11:33 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly reached voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation. No message was left, which is appropriate given the voicemail was uninitialized.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage the lead or progress the call, but no errors were made in this brief attempt.
Reine Francis Ren 11:34 · 1:11 4/25

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, saying 'I'm the team leader at Evernorth.' They handled the 'I'll think about it' objection politely and did not make any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying questions such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. No program was presented, no next steps were offered, and no contact details or appointments were confirmed. The call ended abruptly after the lead said they would think about it, missing an opportunity to engage further.
Sara Habchi — 11:34 · 1:34 5/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the role of the RCIC licensed consultant and offered a paid consultation as the next step, which is important for compliance and conversion. They also avoided making any illegal promises about guaranteed visas.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask for the lead's name or any key personal details such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals. The call lacked any assessment or presentation of suitable programs, and no steps, timelines, or contact details were confirmed. This made the call feel incomplete and missed many opportunities to engage the lead effectively.
Reine Francis — 11:36 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, inviting the lead to respond if interested.

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 call to action beyond asking to get back when available.
Sara Habchi — 11:36 · 1:11 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to explain the evaluation process and pathways available, showing knowledge of the programs.

What went wrong

The call was mostly unintelligible with poor audio quality, preventing a real conversation or any meaningful engagement with the lead.
Reine Francis — 11:37 · 0:40 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, stating, "This is Ren, team leader at Evernorth." They also referenced the lead's prior application and encouraged a callback, which is appropriate for a voicemail message.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or qualification could take place. The message was brief and polite but did not include a direct offer for a next step or consultation, which could improve callback rates.
Reine Francis Prashant 11:39 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message for Prashant, identifying themselves and the company, and explaining the reason for the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message was brief but did not offer a next step or request a callback time.
Reine Francis — 11:39 · 1:14 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail stating the reason for the call and referencing the website application. The message invites the lead to respond with a preferred time, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No message was left beyond the initial voicemail greeting and brief statement, so the opportunity to engage the lead was limited. The caller could have left a more detailed message to encourage a callback.
Reine Francis — 11:41 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail, identifying themselves and the company, and referencing the lead's website application. This message invites the lead to respond if interested, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No message was left beyond the initial prompt and brief introduction, so the opportunity to engage the lead further was missed. Including a callback number or more specific next steps could improve the effectiveness of the voicemail.
Reine Francis — 11:43 · 14:07 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, confirming the lead's current immigration status and goal. They explained the next steps well and offered a paid consultation, even locking a tentative date and confirming contact details via WhatsApp.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's age and education, and did not assess eligibility or points during the call. There was no handling of common objections or a summary of agreements at the end, which could improve call effectiveness.
Reine Francis — 12:04 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

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

What went wrong

No message was left to encourage the lead to call back or initialize their voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage.
Reine Francis — 12:04 · 1:04 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call via message or WhatsApp. This is a good approach to encourage engagement despite not reaching the lead directly.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any information from the lead, so no selling or qualification could occur. The message could have been slightly more specific about the purpose of the call to increase callback likelihood.
Reine Francis — 12:06 · 0:20 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear voicemail message with their name and company, asking the lead to get back by message or WhatsApp with a preferred time for a call. This provides a good prompt for the lead to respond.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead, and no next steps could be locked in. The message could have been slightly more specific about the purpose of the call to increase callback likelihood.
Sara Habchi Patel 13:06 · 0:49 7/26

What was good

The caller confirmed a callback time clearly with the lead, saying 'we did discuss that you would be available to call you back at 1 p.m.' and engaged the lead by asking about his wife's work permit and job.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask about the lead's citizenship, goals, or other key information. There was no explanation of programs, no offer of next steps, and no confirmation of contact details. The call ended abruptly without a proper summary or engagement beyond a brief check-in.
Riya Kathuria Wasim 16:43 · 1:47 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly and confirmed the lead's name early in the call. They successfully arranged a specific callback time, locking in 5:30 for the next conversation.

What went wrong

The caller missed many key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, goals, and eligibility assessment. No information about programs, steps, or consultations was provided, and no contact details were confirmed. The call was very brief and mostly about scheduling a callback rather than advancing the sales process.
Riya Kathuria — 16:54 · 1:01 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly at the start, saying, "This is Ria from Evernorth Immigration." She was polite and responsive to the lead's situation, offering to call back later.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's name, immigration status, or goals, missing a key opportunity to qualify the lead. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and the call ended abruptly without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements.
Riya Kathuria Devin 17:16 · 10:39 20/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, confirming Devin's details thoroughly and explaining the PR process well. She offered a paid consultation and confirmed contact details for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not mention the RCIC licence or past successful cases, which could build trust. She also missed locking a specific date and time for the consultation and did not summarize the agreements at the end of the call.
Riya Kathuria — 17:44 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

There was no meaningful conversation to evaluate as the call lasted only 11 seconds with no clear exchange.

What went wrong

The call ended too quickly to engage the lead or attempt any sales activity; no introduction or information gathering occurred.
Riya Kathuria — 18:06 · 0:26 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified the company, saying 'I am calling from Evernorth.'

What went wrong

The caller reached a wrong number and did not ask the person's name or attempt to verify contact details. No qualifying questions or next steps were offered, so the call ended abruptly without any engagement.
Riya Kathuria Jasmine 18:26 · 12:45 20/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and gathered detailed information about Jasmine's immigration status, education, and work experience. They thoroughly explained the PR pathways, consultation process, and fees, providing transparency and building trust by mentioning the licensed CEO and license ID.

What went wrong

The caller missed confirming Jasmine's contact details and did not lock in a specific date or time for the consultation. Also, no summary of agreements was given at the end, and some common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not addressed during the call.
Riya Kathuria Ben 19:26 · 4:30 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and engaged the lead by confirming his name and current immigration status. She listened carefully and promised to check with her manager before providing further advice, showing honesty and care.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather key information such as age, language proficiency, or work experience, nor did she assess eligibility or present any program options. She also failed to offer a paid consultation or lock in a next step, missing opportunities to advance the sale.
Riya Kathuria Karan 19:35 · 9:38 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Ria, I'm calling from Evernorth Immigration' and addressed the lead by name, Karan. She confirmed the lead's current immigration status by asking about the work permit validity and offered a clear next step by proposing to book a consultation appointment and scheduling a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. No immigration programs or timelines were explained, and contact details were not confirmed. The call ended without summarizing agreements, which could leave the lead unclear about next steps.
Riya Kathuria Ben 20:24 · 3:12 18/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced the company and services, confirming the lead's name and current visitor visa status. They successfully offered a paid consultation, locked in a specific date and time, and confirmed contact details, summarizing the agreements well at the end.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important client details such as age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, and did not assess eligibility or handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Including these would improve the quality of the consultation booking.
Riya Kathuria Netic 20:42 · 1:11 6/26

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 early on, asking, 'Is this Netic?'.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any meaningful information about the lead's status, goals, or background, and did not handle the lead's objection effectively. The call ended abruptly without offering a next step or confirming contact details, missing key opportunities to engage the lead further.
Riya Kathuria — 20:50 · 0:45 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly at the start, saying "this is Ria from Evernorth Immigration." She was polite and respectful of the lead's time, offering to call back later as requested.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead or their immigration needs, missing the opportunity to ask for the client's name or details. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and no specific callback time was locked in, which weakens the chance of progressing the lead effectively.
Riya Kathuria Zia 20:53 · 20:17 23/26

What was good

The caller thoroughly gathered key information such as age, education, and work experience, and clearly explained the PR pathways and consultation process. They successfully locked a specific appointment time and confirmed contact details, demonstrating strong control of the call.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle any objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' missing opportunities to reassure the lead. Also, the call ended without a clear summary of agreements, which could help reinforce the lead's commitment.
Riya Kathuria — 21:19 · 2:42 7/26

What was good

The caller successfully arranged a specific appointment date and confirmed contact details, showing good follow-up and organization. They also clearly communicated the process about payment and booking, which helps set expectations.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they gather any client information such as name, goals, or immigration status. The call lacked any discussion of eligibility or program details, missing key sales and qualification steps.
data check · 9 calls not matched to a lead · 2 leads without a phone number · 29 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included