I'm wondering if this is just natural, or if there is some kind of push to make Australia in particular more American?
Many countries try to export their culture as a means of projecting soft power, some more successfully (or perhaps: aggressively even in some case) than others.
The US simply have been the by far most dominant power in the last hundred years, politically as well as culturally.
As for more recent developments, I'm not so sure about that. If anything, from my perspective due the influence of Spotify and Netflix and the wide range of these services provide, popular culture has become more diverse and less US-centric than it used to be.
That said, in the Anglosphere, American influence is more pronounced than elsewhere because of the same linguistic and cultural roots.
Depending on how in depth you want to go you can also take a skim of this https://web.archive.org/web/20011107151615/http://www.guerri... for some search terms for a deeper dive.
Where is the mystery? It would take special effort not to receive such exports from a behemoth which speaks your language and lives next door. Inevitable diffusion. Consider how many Australian artists become also American, for instance.
Everything else - no, or more accurately no more than normally. US has always been good at exporting culture & soft power from Taylor Swift to corporate culture to memes.
I think it happens both organically and intentionally, with different degrees in different countries. For example Denmark has been force fed US culture for many years, due to the strategic importance of Thule Air Base in Greenland, which is Danish on paper. The US culture presents a stark contrast to the Nordic culture, the former being about expansion while the latter about containment (from public behaviour to company operations) and you can see the negative effects of those two conflicting ideologies.
And I have no evidence of US triple letter agencies conducting psyOPs in Denmark, I wish I did
One reason of this push is internet and communication technology. Most of what you use in computer, and phone is made in China (hardware), designed in US (software).
Same thing with the Internet. People from all over the world are on the English Internet, absorbing American/British/etc memes and values. Is that 'intentional' in the sense there's some shadowy cabal behind it? No. It's just a consequence of communications technology.
I’m not sure why the NFL does a few of these games (overseas, more often in London) each year. The stadium seems full, but I don’t know if it’s more Americans who traveled for the game, Europeans who are clamoring for more American Football, or just folks curious to see what the game is like.
I think there is great value for the US in the soft power that comes from other countries adopting American culture, but I’m not sure whether it’s deliberate or just a natural consequence of being such a large economy. There’s also a deeply embedded sense of ‘manifest destiny’ in American culture. We’re out of land to acquire, because we reached the pacific coast and modern politics doesn’t allow for empire building the way it once did. So maybe the next frontier in expanding (our) civilization is to spread our culture.
Somebody mentioned American style Halloween, which I think is a rather interesting case due to its recent, extremely rapid spread. Halloween is like catnip for youth, because it combines three enticing things -- goodies, costumes, and sanctioned convention-breaking. The spread of Halloween has been very controversial, even in some Western countries, but I think it's unstoppable unless the receiving culture has something at least as appealing to compete. I attribute the rapid spread in this generation to the internet.
For example, the USA has a particular history of racial inequality, and in many companies employees need to undergo compulsory training about the so-called "white privilege" and so on. I was surprised to see this being imported in the UK. Most of my friends ignored it just like other parts of the corpoculture ("you just need to watch the video and mark the right answers") but there is something unsettling about this. And obviously there is no room for any discussion, should you be so inconsiderate to start it.
I see a lot of discussion of force and it feels blind to colonialism and other even more forceful cultural indoctrination. American culture isn’t generally forced on anyone (exceptions exist!). It evolved as individual humanism by a multicultural society, so it’s essentially the cultural equivalent to a donut - super appealing to our human senses, relatable across cultures, and probably bad for you in large quantities. That doesn’t require force, just availability and marketing.
Selfishness and egocentrism play well with consumptionism.
I think it starts with natural isolation and weak societal bonds in the US (haha, as far as it can be observed in Hollywood movies). People lack something then and they are offered a lot of entertainment. That entertainment is more often than not something you buy.
And then at some point the US corporates realized the US market is not so big. Or it is big, but the total world is bigger. And they can or even need to export their goods and services. And when exporting they often need to sell and market their products using feelings. These feelings are often pictured in American context, even if the content is presented abroad.
TLDR: I think it's intentional.
Fun fact: Freddy Mercury studied in an American school in India.
I believe America and Russia were competing for soft power. Americans and Russians allegedly funded pro-democracy and pro-communism parties in India.
There was Raduga publishers which translated Russian literature into high quality English books. I remember fairy tales, city kid in a village, Lenin's mother who had children receive death penalty for revolution. Yes, it was way later than 1991.
India, after independence, experimented with "limited capitalism", that is, it had private banks, foreign brand operated in India e.g. Coca-Cola, universities were formed with help from American universities, etc. But after few years, India started becoming more socialist (India is by constitution a socialist country). Banks were made public, foreign brands like Coca-Cola were asked to leave India etc. The goal was to make India self-reliant. Local brands were promoted internally. The fallout from this was India was heavily sanctioned by the west. No educational books from foreign authors, no computers, no foreign technology, no defence deals(except from Russia). In all this few Indian commercial brands started to shine within India. One of them was "ThumsUp", a soft-drink similar to Coca-Cola. After India was brought to its knees due to sanction and its own internal old bureaucratic structures, India finally agreed to "open up" and foreign brands were allowed to enter the country again. Coca-Cola came to India again. The founders of the local Indian soft-drink "ThumsUp" became jittery looking at the might of the US brands Coca-Cola and Pepsi and sold out to Coca-Cola. Since then Coca-Cola, the company, has tried many times in various was to kill the "ThumsUp" brand by changing the taste of the drink, raising prices, changing the logo, changing the bottle shape and size. Nothing worked! Even though Coca-Cola now owns the brand, it has been unsuccessful in killing the Indian brand.
Now, consider the story on the other side of the world, in Scotland. Scotland has its own soft-drink "Irn-Bru". When the American soft-drinks companies tried to beat that brand they failed. But unlike the Indian company that sold itself, the Scottish company decided to stand against the might of the American companies.
So, it is about how the locals handle the American entry. America does push it's "ideas" on to other cultures, as was the case in India, but the locals can decide whether to accept it or not.