Like many others, I was saddened to hear about the closure of JPG, the “crowd-sourced” photography mag that started in 2004 and became a real Web 2.0 success story. I confess that I never actually saw a physical issue of the magazine, but I thought the concept had a lot of merit: a collection of the best photos submitted by a community of passionate photographers, voted on by the community and then printed and published. Printing and distributing a high-quality magazine costs a lot of money, however, and it seems JPG couldn’t quite find the business model that would make that part of the organization work.

On the first day of the new year, the magazine — backed by a consortium involving former CNET exec Halsey Minor — announced that it was folding due to a lack of funds. For many, this was the second in a series of tragedies for JPG, with the first being the ousting of founders Derek Powazek and Heather Champ in May of last year, after what appeared to be a falling-out with Minor and other backers. Many people cancelled their JPG accounts as a result, in solidarity with Powazek and Champ, and it’s possible that the friction and stresses that event put on the JPG community helped contribute to its current problems.

On a more hopeful note, there are signs that JPG could potentially be resurrected. As Mike Arrington notes at TechCrunch, there has been an expression of interest from SmugMug CEO Don McAskill, and a post at the JPG blog says that discussions are underway with a number of interested parties. I hope they can come to some kind of agreement, because the concept behind the magazine makes a lot of sense to me, and seems like a natural fit with an existing community like SmugMug’s.

On the heels of CBS acquiring CNET for $1.8-billion comes another deal involving “old” media and “new” media: according to TechCrunch, the folks over at Conde Nast — the magazine publishing family that owns Vogue, the New Yorker and Wired — have plunked down about $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs posts. Kara Swisher of All Things D has a video interview with site co-founder Ken “Caesar” Fisher.

Although Conde Nast is mostly known for print magazines, it has been making inroads into digital publishing, including the purchase of Wired (for about $25-million) last year, as well as the acquisition of Digg competitor Reddit. Conde also owns Epicurious.com and the recently-launched online magazine Portfolio, and has other online assets including Style.com and Brides.com. Conde Nast is a unit of Advance Publications, a private company controlled by the Newhouse family that also owns a number of local business journals and U.S. newspapers.

According to FM Publishing’s page on Ars Technica, the site gets about 19 million page views a month (TechCrunch says the site gets 4.5 million uniques a month, according to a source). With a CPM fee of about $36 per ad, that means the site could make as much as $2-million a month in advertising revenue — and it apparently has just eight employees, including co-founders Ken “Caesar” Fisher and Jon “Hannibal” Stokes, who started the site in 1998.

Update:

I remembered that Doug McIntyre from 24/7 Wall Street did a financial analysis of some of the leading blogs and their theoretical value awhile back, so I went and looked at it, and here’s what he said:

“Ars Technica: $15 million. High church high tech blog. Sites ranks 2,500 in Alexa. Compete shows over 800,000 visitors. Audience is growing very rapidly. Quancast has reach at 1.1 million. Ads are all premium clients. Site should be getting $40 per page CPM. Page views are probably six million a month. Revenue of almost $3 million. Site appears to have high end edit staff writing. Margin estimated at 35%. High-end site should be very valuable. Fifteen times operating profit.”

Not bad, Doug. Obviously Conde Nast thought it was worth a little more. Ken Fisher’s note to the Ars community is here.

There’s lots of chit-chat this morning about The Industry Standard — one of the leading lights of the tech publishing business during the first bubble — relaunching as a Web-only publication, something that was expected to happen in December, according to a report from the always reliable Rex Hammock, but didn’t wind up taking place until now. The site will be using outside contributors such as Matt Marshall of Venturebeat and Fred Wilson of A VC, and it also has an interesting “prediction market” feature that should be fun to watch as it develops.

The thing that really struck me about the new Industry Standard, however, is how much it is a metaphor for the evolution of the magazine industry itself. During the boom times, magazines like The Standard and Wired were the size of a phone book — despite the fact that most of the stuff they wrote about was on the Web. I remember bringing the magazines to my desk and painstakingly typing in Web addresses. Now, whatever I read about tech comes from Wired’s website, but also TechCrunch and Mashable and GigaOm (welcome back, Om) and Techmeme.

It may seem as though the new Industry Standard is deliberately setting their sights low, as Peter Kafka describes it at Silicon Alley Insider, with just one full-time employee and a lot of outside contributors. But in many ways, I think the new Standard (and Silicon Alley Insider itself, for that matter) is a lot closer to what “magazine” publishing should be like — and is like — now than the old one. I wish them luck.