r without showing consistency, and our profits also fluctuated similarly. However, the last three quarters were particularly encouraging, with revenue increasing in each of those years, as well as profit.
Over the course of the simulation, we were unable to rein in cost of goods sold, which steadily increased as a percentage of revenue. However, we were able to reduce our total expenses as a percentage of revenue over the most recent three quarters, in part by reducing our general overhead expenses by two points as a percentage of sales.
While our total assets increased over the course of the simulation, our return on assets also fluctuated wildly, ranging from a high of 129.5 to a low of 26.7 (Quarter 7). Since Quarter 7, however, our return on assets has steadily increased until it is now at a strong 92.9 percent at the end of the simulation.
As the simulation neared its conclusion, we had moved away from the low cost strategy in that we had decreased not only general overhead (which decreases expenses as a whole), but also seen a trend in decreasing mass marketing and quality control, two other hallmarks of the low cost strategy. If we were to continue the simulation, it would be recommended that we halt cutbacks in these areas in order to maintain the low cost strategy that has made us successful in this area.
Our exercise equipment SBU was also a strong performer finishing the simulation with assets valued 22 percent higher than at the beginning. Like the health club SBU, this SBU was maintained throughout the entire simulation.
Our exercise equipment SBU saw a consistent strategy applied throughout the simulation. This strategy began with a focus with differentiation, grew into a differentiation strategy for five quarters, and returned to a focus with differentiation strategy for the last quarter. These strategies both emphasize product development and marketing, with the difference that focus with differenti...