VISASQ/COLEMAN Reviews | Check if colemanrg.com is scam or legit?

Written by the company

VISASQ/COLEMAN was established in 2021 as a partnership between
Asia’s top expert network firm, VISASQ and Coleman Research, a trusted
expert service provider with more than 20 years of global experience.

Our goal is to provide global leaders and business investors with the expertise needed to make better decisions.

There are barriers to knowledge and our mission is to remove them – with a global platform for the direct and rapid exchange of critical insights.


Charles Francis

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Good Engagement

This is my first experience with VISASQ/COLEMAN and it was what I would expect from a company who works with consultants, professional and easy to engage. Their vetting process was seamless and my background was matched well with the client’s needs. I look forward to working with this firm in the future.


David Tan

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

My first conseling experience

This is my first time collaborating with VISASQ/COLEMAN, the overall process is quite smooth and delightful. Wayne Chan reached out to me regarding the feasibility of providing consultation. He explained to me the questions I was concerned about with quick response, as a result his customer and I think it will be productive. He also reminded me that I might face ID verification issue and then helped me solved the problem, he’s great.


Frank Hobbs

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Great Start

I have only just recently done some work for Visasq/Coleman, however, the experience has been better than expected. The initial vetting process has been straightforward, the scheduling has been easy to set up, interviews have been as expected or better and payment has been quicker than anticipated.

I am looking forward to more opportunities to work with Visasq/Coleman and their clients.


Kevin

Rated 2 out of 5 stars

I’ve had two engagements with this…

I’ve had two engagements with this organization so far, both poor. The first I was contacted with an “URGENT” client need, and so I promptly followed up and completed their questionnaire, and the client manager has not responded since.

The second engagement I followed up with some questions and never heard back.


EFREN MUNOZ

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I think the vetting process is good and…

I think the vetting process is good and adequate. I knew exactly what to expect during the consulting engagement.


Charles Miller

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

My first experience with Coleman was…

My first experience with Coleman was exactly what I had hoped. Chris Yim was a pro at handling the arrangements with the client and the match of my expertise to the client’s requirements was spot on!


Bob Haggerty

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Follow up on first Call

Rachel and Jack made the process very simple. Helpful reminders prior to the Call and then great follow up post-call. The consultation went smoothly and was an engaging discussion.


Darina Doroshenko

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Very well organised

Very well organised. I had a clear brief prior to the consultation. I was called before to schedule a meeting. All was great.


rtl

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Excellent Partner for Expert Engagements

Sydney was proactive, responsive, and ensured a seamless match with the client. She communicated clearly throughout and handled all logistics efficiently, she’s a great partner for expert calls.


Wasfi Alazzam

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

it was great call


Juan De Paoli

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Great communication and good topics


Deepak Sen

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Prompt service by Visasq/Coleman

First, the communication from the Company was prompt, on time and clear. Next, the billing process almost immediately started after the call got over. Lastly, the client which they referred are well known global Investors, it proves that they have well connected business network.


Timothy Stapleton

Rated 4 out of 5 stars

Good discussion and Steve knew his…

Good discussion and Steve knew his subject


Shawn Nickerson

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Base Rate

If a consultant’s hourly rate is $225.00, that should be the base rate.


John Walker

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

It felt great to give an experienced…

It felt great to give an experienced viewpoint to the client.


Carlos Thomas

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Good match with client

Good match with client. Technology performed well.


James Silver

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

An outstanding interview

An outstanding interview, probing, excellent questions, and easy back-and-forth conversation.


JS

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Have been a VISASQ/COLEMAN expert for a…

Have been a VISASQ/COLEMAN expert for a couple of years. I qualify for a few consultations a year. It’s worth the time and payment is quick and easy. I recommend that anyone with a considerable amount of time in their given industry sign up and share their insights.


Phil

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Organized and insightful conversation…

Organized and insightful conversation around recyclability and the evolving market standards. The market is experiencing dramatic changes taking place, yet it is interesting how paper labels still hold their ground in terms of cost effectiveness, while the flexibility and premium decoration of PS labels makes it appealing for certain applications.

I thought the content was very good, while there remains an intertwined usage of substrates and processes based on existing technologies being used to apply the different types of labels.

I enjoyed working with Hannah and preparing for this consultancy and look forward to working with your team again in the near future.


Denise Kvapil

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Very professional

Very professional. Questions are clear and concise and made interview very comfortable


Below are the analyze and conclusion of us about above reviews

The company introduction provides a brief history and mission statement, establishing VISASQ/COLEMAN as a partnership between two established expert network firms. It highlights their goal of facilitating knowledge exchange for business leaders and investors. This statement is a standard practice for companies to showcase their value proposition and build trust. It doesn’t offer evidence of legitimacy or scam activity but provides context for their operations.

Charles Francis: This review expresses a positive initial experience, highlighting the professionalism and ease of engagement. The reviewer mentions a seamless vetting process and a good match with the client’s needs. The language is straightforward and believable, suggesting a genuine positive experience. The use of specific details like “seamless vetting process” adds credibility.

David Tan: This review also describes a positive first-time experience. The reviewer specifically praises “Wayne Chan” for his helpfulness and quick responses in addressing concerns and resolving an ID verification issue. The reviewer’s willingness to mention an employee by name lends credibility, suggesting a genuine interaction.

Frank Hobbs: This review indicates a better-than-expected experience, especially regarding the straightforward vetting process, easy scheduling, and quick payment. This detail about payment speed is a key positive, as it directly addresses a concern that many consultants have. The reviewer anticipates future collaborations, further supporting a positive assessment.

Kevin: This review presents a negative experience, contrasting with the previous ones. The reviewer cites two instances of poor engagement, including a lack of response after completing a questionnaire and unanswered follow-up questions. This negative feedback is crucial as it provides balance and indicates potential issues with communication or client management within the company. It adds credibility by showing not all experiences are perfect.

EFREN MUNOZ: This concise review focuses on the positive aspects of the vetting process, stating that it was “good and adequate” and that they knew what to expect. While short, it contributes to the overall picture of a structured process.

Charles Miller: This review highlights a positive first experience, praising “Chris Yim” for his professionalism in handling arrangements and matching expertise to client requirements. Similar to the review by David Tan, the mention of a specific person makes the review seems genuine.

Bob Haggerty: This review mentions “Rachel and Jack” by name, praising their simplicity in making the process and their helpful reminders prior to the consultation. The reviewer also mentions that the consultation was smooth and engaging. Again, the mention of names makes the review more genuine.

Darina Doroshenko: This review is very short and mentions how well organized the process was. The reviewer mentiones having a clear brief prior to the consultation and being called to schedule the meeting.

rtl: This review calls out “Sydney” by name and praises her proactive communication and efficient handling of logistics. This specific mention of the person’s name and their roles supports the review’s authenticity.

Wasfi Alazzam: This is a very short review with minimal substance. It simply states “it was great call”. It doesn’t provide any specific details or context. Due to its brevity and lack of specific information, its credibility is questionable. It provides very little useful information.

Juan De Paoli: This review is very short and only says “Great communication and good topics”. Similar to the review above, it doesn’t provide any specific details or context. Due to its brevity and lack of specific information, its credibility is questionable.

Deepak Sen: This review focuses on the prompt communication, billing process, and the quality of the clients referred by the company. Stating the clients are well-known global investors improves credibility. This review adds substance to the claim the company is legit.

Timothy Stapleton: This review is short and only mentions a “Good discussion and Steve knew his subject”. While positive, the lack of detail makes it difficult to fully assess its credibility. However, it does contribute to the overall positive sentiment.

Shawn Nickerson: This review raises a point about base rates for consultants and suggests that it should match the consultant’s hourly rate. This is a very specific comment about their pay/rate.

John Walker: This review is short and simply states “It felt great to give an experienced viewpoint to the client.” The shortness of the review brings its credibility down a little bit.

Carlos Thomas: This review mentions a “Good match with client” and that “Technology performed well.” The reviewer mentions the good match with the client, which is the whole point of VISASQ/COLEMAN’s existence.

James Silver: This review compliments the interview itself, describing it as “outstanding, probing, excellent questions, and easy back-and-forth conversation”. The user gave a very specific description of the interview.

JS: This review comes from a long-term expert, stating they’ve been working with VISASQ/COLEMAN for a couple of years. The reviewer also specifically mentions the payment is quick and easy. Recommending people to sign up and share their insights improves credibility.

Phil: This review is detailed and provides specific insights into the conversation around recyclability and market standards. The reviewer also mentions “Hannah” by name and indicates he looks forward to working with the team again.

Denise Kvapil: This review mentions the process being very professional. The reviewer also indicates that the questions are clear and concise and made interview very comfortable.

colemanrg.com likely legit

Note: The above statement is just my personal opinion, you should check carefully at the sources and make the right decision for yourself.

Leave a Reply