It seems like you should take into account the cut that a hotel chain extracts from each franchise to make a fair comparison.
I don't have a good sense of how much that is.
I don't have a good sense of how much that is.
If you reduce the "before" of (let's say that the chain/franchise fee is lower and that not all bookings (thankfully) go through booking.com or similar, by 10% of 120,000,000 in the "before" i.e. 12,000,000 and reduce by the same amount 10% of 99,000,000, 9,900,000, you get to a "before" of 168,000,000 and an "after" of 170,400,000, so you have a slight increase in "income" :
2,400,000/168,000,000=1,4%
But anyway the "unit prices" were arbitrary and just for the sake of the reasoning.
Yes, this is possible in some (not all) countries, there is a clause in booking.com and similar web aggregators/portlas/whatever you call them contract about the "parity rate" where you cannot sell the same room at a price lower than the one advertised on booking.com, expedia, etc..
Little by little Law in several countries has been modified to make the clause a null one, Germany, Austria, France, in a hopefully near future Italy:
http://hotelanalyst.co.uk/2017/05/16/hotels-accused-of-freer...
But for the sake of reasoning it changes little as - as said - both unit prices and hypotherical increase in presence were just "invented" and the saving is of course for the visitor so the city/place (globally) won't see those anyway.