I don't agree--a well-done analogy should mirror on the inner structure of the inference, and demonstrate how it works. For example, consider this classic Feynman quote:

[T]he mathematicians would come in with a terrific theorem, and they're all excited. As they're telling me the conditions of the theorem, I construct something which fits all the conditions. You know, you have a set (one ball) – disjoint (two balls). Then the balls turn colors, grow hairs, or whatever, in my head as they put more conditions on. Finally they state the theorem, which is some dumb thing about the ball which isn't true for my hairy green ball thing, so I say, 'False!'

Compare this to, say, a pundit making an analogy between the economy and a roller coaster ("They both go up and down!"). In the pundit's case, the economy has surface similarities with the roller coaster, but the way you'd predict the behavior of the economy and the way you'd predict the behavior of a roller coaster are completely different, so the analogy fails. In Feynman's case, the imaginary colored balls behave in a logically similar way to the conditions of the proof, and this isomorphism is what makes the analogy work.

Most analogies don't meet this standard, of course. But on a topic like this, precision is extremely important, and the banana/orange sales analogy struck me as particularly sloppy.