About a week ago the makers of Maker's Mark whiskey (of which I am a fan) announced that they were going to dilute their product from 90 proof to 84 proof. The reason this was needed is because it takes 5 - 7 years to age Maker's Mark and demand has increased since 2008. Rather than raise the price, a common remedy for a shortage, Maker's Mark instead intended to increase supply. That did not go over very well with many customers and Maker's Mark has since reversed course. This is an example of consumer sovereignty, a term I teach in my ECON 211 class, or more simply as the market has spoken.
There was a another option for Maker's Mark though, pointed out by Tim Worstall of Forbes. Not sure how it would have worked out but he is certainly thinking like a profit maximizer when perhaps the executives at Maker's Mark were not.
*Though Mr. Worstall refers to his idea as price discrimination it is really nothing more than introducing a new product to the market to meet a subset of the demand. Selling 90 proof Maker's Mark to different people for different prices would be price discrimination.