Over at Galleycat, they interviewed 10,000 authors and compared earnings of the various types of authors. It appears that Hybrid (authors being both self and traditionally published) on average do the best, with traditionally published doing better on average than self-published. They even discussed aspiring authors and their earnings, but didn't really define what an aspiring author is, but they show in the chart some earnings, which means something must've been published. The hybrid authors having the best chances for greater earnings makes sense. They can pick and choose which titles would do best in each venue, and can springboard off of the benefits derived from being traditionally published to assist with recognition and traction for self-published titles they release. There are some interesting charts. Of course, stats can be manipulated, but it seems straight forward enough. Although not specifically stated, I am guessing all earnings (Digital, Audio, Print, etc. are considered). Here is the link to the article for those interested: Galleycat: Most Authors Make Less than $1000 a Year (Digital Book World).