Music is a far from transparent industry, so this piece is a worthy attempt to provide sales data and pricing for key download sites. Especially if, as it claims, "digital music sales now account for an estimated 15% of the global music market".
Fatblog: digital download store comparison.
However, as the piece also points out, with smaller labels no longer offered direct access to bigger digital distributors, this information is useful but not necessarily usable.
Most labels today, especially new labels, are forced to work through aggregators. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A single aggregator can service more than distributors the average label. A label might justify wasting time preparing multiple submissions to multiple distributors - but typically it's simpler to pay an aggregator a percentage to manage the lot.
But it's not like labels really have a choice. Beatport made a big song and dance recently about refusing direct access to labels that turn over less than US$300 a quarter. It's most likely PR - like most of the music industry, Beatport has never been particularly accessible to new labels or artists. It's always used aggregators as gatekeepers for new material.
But the PR has been surprisingly broadly accepted. The ResidentAdvisor forum, for instance, came out in favour of tough gatekeeping - and, arguably, against new labels and artists.
It might describe its viewpoint as pro "agressive quality control" rather than anti new talent.
But that shows little interest in or understanding of how most artists grow in quality as they release more records.
Beatport is discussed following the RA article: are MP3 bloggers self-aggrandising spoddy teenagers who compete to rip off labels, or meaningful music critics? (Short answer: do you read any of the crap they write?)