I think this is probably a waste of money. Mix templates are not something that really works in practice. Even if I mix songs from the same genre, there are few commonalities that would allow templating. You cannot sensibly separate the recording process from the mixing process in a way that would allow for generic templates.
The examples of the differences before/after are also very likely not authentic. The before sample sounds like a recording with badly placed microphones and a lot of room ambience. If you want to get the result they present as “after”, you would have put quite a bit of thought into microphone placement before already, close miking the individual drum elements. If you did that already, it’s extremely unlikely that you’re so incompetent to create the ‘before’ mix they show by making the room ambient channel so dominant. So it seems they deliberately made a very bad mix from good source material to show their point. The same is true for the other examples.
So to me it sounds not exactly like scam, but like a poor product with limited applicability together with dishonest marketing to take advantage of those who believe that mixing is too hard for them to master. Mixing is hard, but if you trust your ears and just collect some experience, you will get there soon enough. And most importantly, you will learn how to produce good quality from step one. Nobody (and especially no template) will create a good mix from a bad recording.
If you want to invest money into better sounding mixes, I would recommend you get Alan Parson’s DVD training. It’s one of the best resources you can get for learning about audio engineering on a level you need as a creative musician who wants to perform all production steps himself.