“Design thinking” and corny gimcracks

I just somewhat belatedly read this story about “design thinking,” which is described as focusing on “people’s actual needs rather than trying to persuade them to buy into what businesses are selling.” This, of course, is not a new idea, although it’s always useful, I guess, to find new ways for businesses to remind themselves about the difference between innovation and novelty.

That said, what struck me as odd about the piece was the main specific example offered.

Although a company called ServiceSource asked [consulting firm] C2 to create a written report for business analysts to read, C2’s design thinkers reframed the problem to focus on what ServiceSource was trying to tell the analysts in the first place. (ServiceSource wanted the analysts to recognize that its ability to renew service contracts on behalf of technology providers could increase those providers’ revenue.)

Wait a minute. That sounds to me like this business is “trying to persuade [customers] to buy into what [it is] selling.” Right? I don’t see anything here about ServiceSource changing its business model to better reflect customer needs it hadn’t been aware of or was under-serving. It sounds like they’ve got this service they’re peddling, and that’s that.

Rather than producing a report that would probably be tossed unread into the nearest wastebasket, C2 sent the analysts a “High-Tech C.F.O. Action Figure” — a roughly 12-inch-tall male doll dressed in a business suit that delivered a brief, recorded message when its “Talk” button was pushed. …

Months after ServiceSource’s report would have been thrown away, analysts who received the “action figures” still have them.

Huh? Is this the sort of sophisticated result of “design thinking”? An action figure that bleats a sales pitch? What’s good about that? Am I missing something?