How can this info graphic not include YouTube stream revenue?

I am going to guess CD Baby doesn't make anything from Youtube?

CD baby isn't in the streaming business either. This fact must be taken into consideration when judging the veracity of the data. 

Also, Zune?!?

I think there may be some confusion as to how CD Baby works, so let me clear some of that up, as an artist that is distributed by them.

1. CD Baby only distributes material authorised by the copyright holder to services authorised by the copyright holder. It is therefore possible that an album on CD Baby will be available only as a CD in their store, will be distributed as a pure-digital release or any combination of the above. Moreover, the copyright holder has numerous options of including or excluding particular third-party services, so - depending on individual settings - CD Baby might not be collecting revenue from a particular service for a particular release (which the copyright holder might make available through a different distributor). Finally, since the digital distro settings are something of a fire-and-forget thing, it is possible that a copyright holder simply forgets to adjust them as new services become available (when I joined CD Baby, Spotify was still in private beta).
2. CD Baby can only collect revenue from the services that have a deal with them, so until YouTube actually decided they're willing to pony up some cash, no revenue could be collected. Sync licensing is a fairly recent option on CD Baby, to the best of my knowledge, and independent of other digital distro options (which can have coarse settings like "Everything that pays" - eliminating the need for opting in to every new service as it appears). It's quite possible that the majority of copyright holders/artists distributed by CD Baby have simply not opted in yet.
3. Then there is the question of accounting on the part of the actual service. When distributing material to the iTunes store, say, CD Baby delivers the actual file and metadata, meaning that iTunes can update their database to say "All money from song X is to be sent to CD Baby". The situation with YouTube is a lot less clear-cut, because any videos will probably have been uploaded independently of CD Baby - by the artist herself, for instance. Therefore, it appears more than likely that any revenue accruing from YouTube will depend on Content ID correctly identifying the song (CD Baby only handles the synchronisation licensing for music it distributes - not the video rights). In other words: YouTube can always say "What money? We have no record of any plays of this song" and it might not be terribly easy to prove they're lying or force them to pay (since they haven't actually struck licensing deals for each individual video they have on the site).
4. Leaving all of the above aside, it takes time for money to work its way from the service to CD Baby and the copyright holder/artist. For example, Spotify accounting takes a quarter, so I am only now being credited for plays in May.

Summing up, there are many reasons why YouTube revenue still isn't included in the above figures. This might change if and when CD Baby chooses to publish similar information in the future. However, based on what I know about how much YouTube pays (and the fact that accounting is likely to be shady at best) I don't expect licensing revenue from that source to be a significant component for a long time to come.

From CD Baby to Download Baby to Stream maybe?

I really think streaming is the way the industry is moving. This change will be predominant in the next generation of music fans.

Artists can also get their music on to Spotify even cheaper than CDBaby at RouteNote.com

It costs $50 for an artist to list their album with CD baby and take advantage of all these aggregators. It does nothing to promote the album. Artists can also place their albums on the aggregators themselves. Even then, the aggregators get all the promotion a.k.a. "buy our album on iTunes!" Trying to make your $50 back or get anything done is a collossal task, yet they also tell you to place as much of your old catalog on their site as possible because it may be used for synch licensing (at $50 a piece) It's becoming a reality that artists are getting tired of these aggregators, we didn't need them in the past and likely won't need them in the future. 

Actually, that one-time fee is not only very affordable, and not too colossal of a sum to make back for so many independent musicians, but it gets you many other services and tools, including our widget, the YouTube deal, our Facebook music store, and many other things at http://members.cdbaby.com/ and to come (not to mention physical CD distribution!) And many of the retail stores we deliver to - actually, most - don't take artists going direct (because they don't want to deal with nonstandard metadata and encoding or millions of accounts) - and, even if someday they would, our handling all of the accounting and delivery for you would save you many hours of hassle.  As far as promotion, we don't want to make false promises or charge huge sums to offer "marketing packages" as other companies do - we're all about providing advice (at diymusician.cdbaby.com and in our newsletters) and tools to help you look good and get you everywhere.  Cheers.

- Brian Felsen
President, CD Baby

What was the method used to compile these stats?

So CD Baby should change it's name to "Aggregator Baby"? I've been reading for years about CD Baby boasting how it has sold millions of CDs for independent artists but now they're revealing that they don't really sell many physical CDs at all? I'm confused - when did this happen? I was under the impression that downloads only accounted for a small portion of CD Baby's revenue (unlike the majors).Weird... so much for making a living from selling CDs I guess!

here is another piece that, albeit comforting of course, repeats the mistake that musician=artist

    I've seen many of my wish list items not having cd purchase available anymore.I'm an upcoming audiophile and I'm trying to purchase cds whenever I can afford them.It just so many artist,it's expensive.I hope cds stick around.I don't want to be stuck with 320 bit rate max.Most digital music services only provide 256bit rate for mp3s also.everyone loves and has hd tv,and I want my hd music too.  

  Digital music distribution has only made piracy easier,most people under 50 just donwload torrents and mp3s illegally.I was sent reports to the FBI and RIAA about limewire and megaupload months before they were both shut down;I hope my reports led to the shut downs.Everyone at my job tells me they download music for free,even my boss,pisses me off.People have no morals,becasue they think they can't caught.they have that everyone else is doing it too mentality.