[imposterr]

I've stopped using the word "cheap" to describe situations like this as the word has too many negative connotations. I tend towards "inexpensive", "cost-effective", or "low-cost". I find it better describes my intent to describe something as not costing much but not speaking to poor quality which I feel like the word "cheap" has come to imply.

[gsck]

Theres a phrase in the UK that is "Cheap and cheerful" which I think is perfectly apt for this

[specproc]

I think "cheap" sounds worse in American.

[fuzzfactor]

I would say "low-cost, high-impact" when that makes more sense.

In this case it's more like low-cost high-delight which does sound a bit better than "cheap thrills" ;)

The owls do seem to convey a sense of communal grumpiness, expressed individually :)

Not unlike HN at tines . . .

[novosel]

Frugal?