Working on note the sound exposed me to musicians and the local venues where they play. They collaborate to present 'entertainment events' but their primary industries are different. I noticed they both participated separately in their own form of logo accumulation: musician or band websites have brands for music streaming and purchase platforms; restaurants have stickers for check-in or delivery apps.
I think there is a difference between having one logo for one service (using a single company exclusively for your music distribution or food delivery) and multiple logos for the same service. The first case is convenient for the 'provider' (musical artist or restaurant) because they only have to have one relationship with a third party in order to offer a service, but this leaves limited options for the 'consumer' (listeners or people who order food). The second is convenient for the consumer because they can use their platform of choice, but requires the provider to create and maintain multiple business relationships with different providers.
I observed the second case more frequently, and although I respect the choice to have multiple logos for third-party services, I find it strange to be forced to do this, to feel that in order to exist, one needs these symbols. The power dynamic evokes for me a slavery connotation of 'brands on our bodies' and it's this mindset that makes me avoid corporate logos on my work. I generally use symbols that i produce.
The ideal solution to this would be a protocol: providers declare their offerings in a standardized format, multiple platforms aggregate it all in novel ways, and consumers can make personal choices—no one needs to do repeated work and there are more options for everyone.