One of the problems with marketing "ANZAC" (or perhaps given the role of the state in the eras primarily under discussion, propagandising is a better verb) is that WWII changed the desirability of ANZACness.
ANZACness has been contested. From the Rape of Cairo description, to the reconfiguration of ANZAC as something admirable and nation forming, to the post-war returnee riots, to the structuring of soldier identity in line with the state (Monash's secret army, soldier-settler, the RSL hegemony fights).
ANZAC has been a contested process, at least in Australia,—and so by WWII ANZACness was in decline in contrast with more important war myths: PNG, Chockos, the road to Darwin, Yanks, etc.
After the War, you can tell from the structure of memorials that ANZACness was not important. If you compare the Newcastle WWI memorial(s), mostly 3/4 height white marble statutes knocked off in their hundreds, in Newcastle 2300's case outside the former post-office; with Newcastle's WWII memorial: a public library, you can see a change in social tone and timbre in relation to war remembrance.
The Decline of ANZAC day in the post-war era, and its subsequent revival are well known.
Changing the propaganda name of having Kiwi spotters in Australian companies in the Republic of Vietnam isn't significant, and given the decline in ANZACness not important.
If contributors with to follow this up, I'd recommend Bruce Scates on ANZAC commemorations.
yours,
Sam R.